Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Color Revolutions Bulletin, 2017

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

Top Visited
 Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 11, 2019] Soros is the stanch defender and promoter of neoliberalism. He specializes and excels in using nationalism for destabilization of societies, especially in Soviet and post-Soviet space

Notable quotes:
"... Soros was instrumental in the collapse of the USSR due to the incompetence of Gorbachov and his clique of neoliberal reformers some of which later became part of Yeltsin entourage (Alexander Yakovlev, Yegor Gaidar, later the architect of the "shock therapy" reforms, Eduard Shevardnadze, etc). Their attempt to establish the second NEP ( which created a caste of "Komsomol bankers", like Khodorkovsky) went out of control and buried the already weakened USSR along with the splash of nationalism (by-and-large induced by the West) in all Soviet republics. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

likbez , July 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Matt,

You are all over the place, but let's return to Soros. Soros is a neoliberal, a staunch proponent of globalization. BTW Karl Popper was the member of Mont Perelin Society ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society ). You can't get more neoliberal than that.

Neoliberalism as "Trotskyism for rich" is determined to install neoliberal regimes in all countries, if necessary by force, or subversion ("color revolutions" model. )

The accusation of totalitarianism is a standard neoliberal practice for governments they do not like, especially those who are not very friendly to multinationals.

Soros was instrumental in the collapse of the USSR due to the incompetence of Gorbachov and his clique of neoliberal reformers some of which later became part of Yeltsin entourage (Alexander Yakovlev, Yegor Gaidar, later the architect of the "shock therapy" reforms, Eduard Shevardnadze, etc). Their attempt to establish the second NEP ( which created a caste of "Komsomol bankers", like Khodorkovsky) went out of control and buried the already weakened USSR along with the splash of nationalism (by-and-large induced by the West) in all Soviet republics.

BTW he established the presence in all major Soviet Republics and promoted nationalism like there is no tomorrow, spending tens million of dollars on bribing key intellectuals and policy makers and working in close cooperation with USAID (and even just one million dollars was substantial money during this period and can get you a huge leverage) . Often working in close cooperation with emigrant organizations from the USA and Canada.

Now he complains about rising of ethno nationalism and cultural-nationalism in Europe ;-)

https://www.georgesoros.com/essays/remarks-delivered-at-the-brussels-economic-forum/

[Jan 19, 2019] Coincidence - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First Person To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But Abby's mum now feels the time is right for her daughter to be recognised for the "incredible" way she dealt with the scenario. Alison nominated her for the Lifesaver Award at Spire FM's Local Hero Awards, and the judges were unanimous in their decision that Abigail was a very worthy winner. ..."
"... Colonel McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer on February 1 2018, just one month before the Skripal incident happened. Colonel McCourt lives in Larkhill, a garrison town some 11 miles from Salisbury. She is known to visit elsewhere. ..."
"... That is such a great article b. I have had a great wry chuckle at the folly of human hubris. Fancy setting up your own daughter for an award. Certainly looks less and less like novichok and more like novifraud with every passing day. ..."
"... Not only is the military mother Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against ebola , she is also the last line of defence for the Army medics and other healthcare workers fighting the deadly disease ..."
"... what a stroke of luck Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against ebola was there, arguably the most qualified person in all of Britain to attend to the Skripals. ..."
"... The story of the heroic Abigail McCourt in helping to save the Skripals must be too good for the likes of The Fraudian and other so-called "progressive" MSM outlets to resist. Strange that such a narrative was not brought up until now, coming close to the anniversary of the poisoning and the deadline for Britain's exit from the EU. ..."
"... Curious that Abigail McCourt received basic first aid training at school (in which she would have been taught CPR) yet when Spire FM hosts spoke to her, she says that her training was not needed. In almost the same sentence, she says Julia Skripal was not breathing. ..."
"... Off-Guardian on Twitter wonders if Alison McCourt had been involved in Exercise Toxic Dagger (chemical weapons training exercise) staged by The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Royal Marines in February 2018: ..."
"... The main area for shoppers to park in Salisbury is just north of the Maltings (site of the alleged attack) so it's not surprising that someone shopping in Salisbury would pass the bench the Skripals were found on. What is surprising it that none of the family seems to have suffered any effects from the Novichok. ..."
"... The Skirpal case, the Maidan coup and the related MH17 downing, the various gas attacks in Syria, the most recent bombing incident also in Syria, the Mueller investigation in its entirety - the sheer incompetence shown by the US and British deep states is simply staggering, and in sharp contrast to the investigative ability of this and other sites. ..."
"... It all adds up to stasi state bullshit. They are so arrogant and cocksure of the controlled media that they can even draw attention to the provocation by seeking an award for a family member despite the prominence of the mother and her role in the power structure. Knowledge, of course, will remain limited to those who are canny enough not to believe the received propaganda wisdom of the five eyes spy state. ..."
"... So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief Nurse Of the British Army? ..."
"... Even though this could have gone a long, long way to explaining the biggest discrepancy in the government narrative (i.e. Novicock is way, way deadly only, err, umm, they didn't die). How odd. How very, very odd. You'd almost think that the government considered that acknowledging that fact would open up more questions than it would answer. Hard to see why..... ..."
"... Recall that it was recently established and published that the Steele Dossier was compiled to act as an Insurance Policy in the event Trump won the election. See here . I posted this news as a comment and b picked up on it too, but that aspect of the Dossier is omitted from his essay above. We can see that the Dossier--like Blair's Dodgy Dossier to sell the illegal war on Iraq--has had a massive impact on Trump's presidency, which, whether you like Trump or not, is a matter of grave concern for the institutions of governance of the USA, and IMO is very close to treason. ..."
"... Sure, the nurse revelation is curious to say the least, but I'm far more interested in the entire disinformation network built by the British along with previous and current versions operated by CIA here in USA. Think back to what Bill Casey said, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false," then Rove's boast: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... Add those to all the 100% evidence free accusations made against Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, other nations and private individuals--the "universal sports doping" by Russian athletes was a massive smear proven to be 100% false--and you can understand why I call it BigLie Media. Clearly, the Skripal story's utter fantasy. But the Brits will kill their own to insure the story isn't compromised--Dr. David Kelly, Dawn Sturgess, and quite likely Sergei Skripal, and likely others from incidents in the further past. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative was also heavily involved in promoting an anti-Russian agenda such as the Skripal affair. ..."
"... reminds me of the kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the runup to the first gulf war. ..."
"... 'So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief Nurse Of the British Army?' And how embarrassing for our 'fearless' journalists and tabloid truth seekers! Let the crowd cry out 'shame'! ..."
Jan 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

On March 4 2018 the British/Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found incapacitated on a bench in Salisbury. The British government asserts that they were affected by a chemical poison of the so called Novichok group. The case led to a diplomatic conflict as Britain accused Russia of an attempt to kill the Skripals. No evidence was provided by the British government to support those accusations. The Skripals have since been vanished.

Today an intriguing new detail of the case came to light. Spire FM , a local radio station in Salisbury, reports of a young woman, Abigail McCourt, who was given a 'Lifesaver Award' for her involvement in the Skripal case:

The 16 year old, from Larkhill, was the first to spot two people collapsed on a bench in the Maltings on March 4th and didn't hesitate to help. Abigail quickly alerted her mum, a qualified nurse, who was nearby and together they gave first aid to the victims until paramedics arrived.

It soon became clear this was no ordinary medical incident, but the poisoning of a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia, with Novichok.

...

Immediately following the incident and with the world's media focused on Salisbury, the pair didn't want any want press attention and kept their involvement quiet.

But Abby's mum now feels the time is right for her daughter to be recognised for the "incredible" way she dealt with the scenario. Alison nominated her for the Lifesaver Award at Spire FM's Local Hero Awards, and the judges were unanimous in their decision that Abigail was a very worthy winner.

Earlier reports mentioned that a 'military nurse' had attended to the Skripals. Following the above report Elena Evdokimova checked the name of the young women's mothers and found a curiosity:

Elena Evdokimova @elenaevdokimov7 - 10:50 utc - 19 Jan 2019

We were right, it was Alison McCourt who was that"unknown military nurse" who, absolutely randomly, happened to be near the bench where #Skripals collapsed . Spire FM alleges that it was her daughter Abigail alerted her, but no one mentioned her before ...

Here is the thing. Alison McCourt is not just one random 'military nurse'. She is the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army in the rank of Colonel:

Colonel A L McCourt OBE ARRC QHN - Assistant Head Health Strategy / Chief Nursing Officer (Army) - Senior Health Advisor (Army) Department.

Colonel McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer on February 1 2018, just one month before the Skripal incident happened. Colonel McCourt lives in Larkhill, a garrison town some 11 miles from Salisbury. She is known to visit elsewhere.

Petri Krohn , Jan 19, 2019 3:12:45 PM | link

Dig deep enough and you will find that Alison McCourt is married to Pablo Miller

c1ue , Jan 19, 2019 3:16:12 PM | link

Lark Hill - as in "V for Vendetta" Lark Hill? Hrmph.
Zachary Smith , Jan 19, 2019 3:17:00 PM | link
As I read this I had two thoughts. The first one is that the Brits have lost the competence they once had with this stuff. "Operation Mincemeat" was, according to all accounts, a marvel in planning, execution, and getting the desired reactions from the German High Command. The "Double-Cross System" turned the extremely risky invasion at Normandy into a success. The recent stuff is a comedy by comparison.

... ... ...

Jetpack , Jan 19, 2019 3:39:34 PM | link
Here's one way she could have made it on time:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RoyalNavy/status/1086623282831523840?s=09
snake , Jan 19, 2019 3:39:49 PM | link
excellent reporting.. still we have little written collaborative evidence.. just as in 9/11 just top dogs saying improbable things.

What seems to me important now is to develop as you have done a set of hypotheses. and to hack at them until we hit the ones which all evidence cannot dispute. Using your summary I rewrite in hypothesis form,

uncle tungsten , Jan 19, 2019 3:44:37 PM | link
Too good. That is such a great article b. I have had a great wry chuckle at the folly of human hubris. Fancy setting up your own daughter for an award. Certainly looks less and less like novichok and more like novifraud with every passing day.
annie , Jan 19, 2019 4:06:54 PM | link
from the Daily Mail:
Not only is the military mother Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against ebola , she is also the last line of defence for the Army medics and other healthcare workers fighting the deadly disease.

what a stroke of luck Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against ebola was there, arguably the most qualified person in all of Britain to attend to the Skripals.

brook trout , Jan 19, 2019 4:10:57 PM | link
Coincidence? Probably like most here, I think not. But isn't this something of an own goal? If indeed things are as we suspect, why would you put the daughter up for an award? Wouldn't you want the can of worms this presents to remain unopened? Can they be this incompetent? Well, looking at the Brexit process, I guess we know the answer to that last by now rhetorical question.
Jen , Jan 19, 2019 4:22:07 PM | link
The story of the heroic Abigail McCourt in helping to save the Skripals must be too good for the likes of The Fraudian and other so-called "progressive" MSM outlets to resist. Strange that such a narrative was not brought up until now, coming close to the anniversary of the poisoning and the deadline for Britain's exit from the EU.

Curious that Abigail McCourt received basic first aid training at school (in which she would have been taught CPR) yet when Spire FM hosts spoke to her, she says that her training was not needed. In almost the same sentence, she says Julia Skripal was not breathing.
https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2782928/exclusive-teenage-girl-describes-moment-she-found-collapsed-skripals/

Off-Guardian on Twitter wonders if Alison McCourt had been involved in Exercise Toxic Dagger (chemical weapons training exercise) staged by The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Royal Marines in February 2018:
https://twitter.com/OffGuardian0
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/exercise-toxic-dagger-the-sharp-end-of-chemical-warfare

Bobby Peru , Jan 19, 2019 4:29:53 PM | link
Say cheese https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGsqbRXuRc
Bobby Peru , Jan 19, 2019 4:40:30 PM | link
My dog barks some https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SrbPkpQHA
Robert Snefjella , Jan 19, 2019 5:10:41 PM | link
b, you are too suspicious. Nothing to see here. Clearly way beyond a serious matter, this dastardly attack on Skripals by the Soviets, er, the Russians, er, Putin.

In Canada our eloquent foreign Minister, in a barrage of outraged talking the talk that was accompanied by making four Russian diplomats walk the walk home, said in words that will surely take their high place in the history of inspired speeches, along with Churchill's 'Never have so many done so much for so few', and MLK's 'I have a nightmare':

Robert Snefjella , Jan 19, 2019 5:11:39 PM | link
And her words re the March 4 nerve agent attack on a close ally and partner of Canada "a despicable, heinous and reckless act" that potentially endangered the lives of hundreds"
Ghost Ship , Jan 19, 2019 5:26:11 PM | link
Strange - no military hospital in Salisbury but then there aren't military hospitals in Britain anymore. Instead the military use civilian hospitals with a Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit attached but none near Salisbury. The Ministry of Defence Hospital Units do not treat operational casualties who are treated at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) in Birmingham. You'd think the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army, Colonel McCourt would work out off the most important site for defence medicine in the UK (QEH in Birmingham) but instead she's based at Larkhill which from memory is where the Royal Artillery is located.

Not so strange - The area inhabited by the British Army north of Salisbury (more specifically north of the A303 road was classified as deprived because of the lack of shopping facilities, so most residents of this area do their shopping in Salisbury which has the best shopping in the area. There are now a Tesco superstore and a branch of Lidl in Tidworth so perhaps it's not so deprived anymore.

The main area for shoppers to park in Salisbury is just north of the Maltings (site of the alleged attack) so it's not surprising that someone shopping in Salisbury would pass the bench the Skripals were found on. What is surprising it that none of the family seems to have suffered any effects from the Novichok.

Hal Duell , Jan 19, 2019 5:39:14 PM | link
The Skirpal case, the Maidan coup and the related MH17 downing, the various gas attacks in Syria, the most recent bombing incident also in Syria, the Mueller investigation in its entirety - the sheer incompetence shown by the US and British deep states is simply staggering, and in sharp contrast to the investigative ability of this and other sites.

The US is fracturing, the EU is fracturing, and therein lies the greatest danger. With the overplayed sanctions only making the sanctioned effect work arounds to the point that the primacy of the US dollar is threatened, with the contain China train having left the station and recently pulling into a station purpose built on the dark side of the moon, their only options look to be to either go nuclear or go away.

2019 looks to be a most interesting year!

exiled off mainstreet , Jan 19, 2019 6:05:32 PM | link
It all adds up to stasi state bullshit. They are so arrogant and cocksure of the controlled media that they can even draw attention to the provocation by seeking an award for a family member despite the prominence of the mother and her role in the power structure. Knowledge, of course, will remain limited to those who are canny enough not to believe the received propaganda wisdom of the five eyes spy state.
Yeah, Right , Jan 19, 2019 6:12:12 PM | link
So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief Nurse Of the British Army?

Even though this could have gone a long, long way to explaining the biggest discrepancy in the government narrative (i.e. Novicock is way, way deadly only, err, umm, they didn't die). How odd. How very, very odd. You'd almost think that the government considered that acknowledging that fact would open up more questions than it would answer. Hard to see why.....

somebody , Jan 19, 2019 6:17:21 PM | link
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jan 19, 2019 5:26:11 PM | 20

She lives in Aldershot like Sergeant Bailey. There is a field hospital based there, she is the chief officer

somebody , Jan 19, 2019 6:37:39 PM | link
Posted by: somebody | Jan 19, 2019 6:17:21 PM | 26

Bailey lives in Alderholt. Aldershot is an hour by car from Salisbury.

Tom Welsh , Jan 19, 2019 6:38:44 PM | link
I am beginning to wonder if Sir Humphrey Appleby and some of his colleagues are conducting a deliberate hoax, piling impossibility upon impossibility and contradiction upon contradiction, just to see how long it takes the unbelievably gullible British public to get the joke and start throwing cabbages and rotten fruit. Not so funny for the poor woman who died - but then, as Sir Humphrey has often been heard to remark, one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.
karlof1 , Jan 19, 2019 6:57:19 PM | link
Recall that it was recently established and published that the Steele Dossier was compiled to act as an Insurance Policy in the event Trump won the election. See here . I posted this news as a comment and b picked up on it too, but that aspect of the Dossier is omitted from his essay above. We can see that the Dossier--like Blair's Dodgy Dossier to sell the illegal war on Iraq--has had a massive impact on Trump's presidency, which, whether you like Trump or not, is a matter of grave concern for the institutions of governance of the USA, and IMO is very close to treason.

Sure, the nurse revelation is curious to say the least, but I'm far more interested in the entire disinformation network built by the British along with previous and current versions operated by CIA here in USA. Think back to what Bill Casey said, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false," then Rove's boast: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Add those to all the 100% evidence free accusations made against Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, other nations and private individuals--the "universal sports doping" by Russian athletes was a massive smear proven to be 100% false--and you can understand why I call it BigLie Media. Clearly, the Skripal story's utter fantasy. But the Brits will kill their own to insure the story isn't compromised--Dr. David Kelly, Dawn Sturgess, and quite likely Sergei Skripal, and likely others from incidents in the further past.

So, while it seems comical, this is all deadly serious.

Krollchem , Jan 19, 2019 7:03:58 PM | link
The Integrity Initiative was also heavily involved in promoting an anti-Russian agenda such as the Skripal affair.

Either Chris Donnelly of the Institute for Statecraft (IoS), (formally of the British Army's Soviet Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst), or UK General Sir Richard Barrons reportedly stated that "if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response, then we need to find a way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it out of the political space."

UK: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/07/inte-j07.html

james , Jan 19, 2019 7:51:44 PM | link
great coverage b.. thank you... it's either a coincidence theory, or a conspiracy theory... no other choices, until the uk gets down to doing an open investigation on integrity initiative...the investigators investigating the investigators.. ain't going to happen... similar deal in the usa now.. basically this will be when hell freezes over - a very long time if ever.. meanwhile the skripals are persona non grata... it would be very interesting to find out where they are kept... it looks like their is no chance for any type of normal life for them here on out... even if the novihoax didn't kill them, the uk has done the equivalent.. it is hard not to tie operation toxic dagger into all of this... the coincidences are just too great..

@ petri.. thanks for the that.. how did you manage to figure that one out? does that mean that allison mccourt is the daughter of pablo miller, or was allison from another relationship/marriage? of course m16 and some folks know the answer to this amazing coincidences and probably are unable to openly say..

psychohistorian , Jan 19, 2019 7:58:50 PM | link
@ Glen Brown and bevin with their correction to my comment.....thanks

I was not in my best of mind and along with misspelling his name I projected my desire for more movement by the UK opposition in light of having the government paying folks to work against them.....my bad idealism........

If it is true that Alison McCourt is married to Pablo Miller as Petri Kohn asserts in comment #1 then it looks like the daughter is being groomed for big things in the UK government.....16 years old and already an award for criminal complicity.

pretzelattack , Jan 19, 2019 8:02:08 PM | link
reminds me of the kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the runup to the first gulf war.
PavewayIV , Jan 19, 2019 8:10:51 PM | link
Petri Krohn@1 - ? Only thing I could find is a reference to her husband Hugh - a prison officer - and her two kids, Abagail (now 16) and Cameron (now 14). That was from a DailyMail article (I know...) from Dec. 20, 2014. She was spending time away from them during Christmas when she was sent to Sierra Leone for the Ebola outbreak. The article also mentions time away from Hugh and Abagail in 2003 when she was deployed to Iraq. Couldn't find anything about Pablo Miller being married or having kids, but many mentions of his home in Salisbury.
karlof1 , Jan 19, 2019 8:11:20 PM | link
bevin @32--

Nice conjecture, except that those who devised the Dossier specifically said it was to be used as insurance in case Trump won. Please see article I linked to in my comment.

Bart Hansen , Jan 19, 2019 8:30:25 PM | link
The daughter is what's know as a "cutout". You can't have the "nurse of all nurses" be the first on the scene. But, they didn't even bother with the daughter having to call mama at home. She was luckily "nearby", presumably lurking behind a tree.
Ghost Ship , Jan 19, 2019 8:43:51 PM | link
>>>>: somebody | Jan 19, 2019 6:17:21 PM | 26

She might have been the commanding officer of 22 Field Hospital but now she's moved on.

From the QARANC website:

Following promotion to Lieutenant Colonel in 2011, Alison attended the Advanced Command and Staff Course. Her initial SO1 appointment was as Chief of Staff, Headquarters 2nd Medical Brigade in York in Aug 2012. Alison assumed Command of 22 Field Hospital in July 2013 and deployed the Unit to Sierra Leone on Op GRITROCK in Oct 14. She was awarded an OBE for her leadership of 22 Field during Op GRITROCK.

On promotion to Colonel in Dec 2015 she assumed an appointment in the newly established Senior Health Advisors department and has been the lead for Assurance and now Health Strategy in that area.

Alison assumed the appointment of Chief Nursing Officer for the Army on 1 Feb 18.

james , Jan 19, 2019 8:57:41 PM | link
@1 petri... unless they hooked up after 2014, your theory doesn't look very likely...

further to @36 paveways comment from the daily mail dec 20 2014 article - Even though Lieut Col McCourt is a veteran of campaigns in Iraq and the Balkans, she admits this tour of duty has taken a toll, and that she has depended on the support of her husband Hugh, a prison officer, to help her through it. While this is her first Christmas apart from her children, she is accustomed to leaving them and her husband behind. In 2003, she left Abigail, then aged just eight months, in Hugh's arms while she went to Iraq to treat British soldiers wounded in the Gulf War. She returned there in 2008 for a second tour of duty.

Lieut Col McCourt said: 'I have a very supportive husband. On both occasions I went to Iraq he took sabbaticals from his job to ensure that our family life was maintained. Yes, it was hard to say goodbye so soon after having my first child but you immerse yourself in your work, and on an operational tour everyone is missing someone. This Christmas he'll be with the children and my mum will join them at the family home in Aldershot. Of course I miss them all but our focus has to be saving lives here.'

ADKC , Jan 19, 2019 8:58:24 PM | link
brook trout @11

Suppose you were Russian and believed that the west would not attack because of the checks and controls that exist in western democracy. Suppose a deadly incident occurred and Russia was blamed and an attack became more likely. Suppose that (as a Russian) you knew Russia wasn't involved and that the evidence was very sketchy and didn't make sense. Suppose this was was all in the public domain but instead of the incident being questioned it was just accepted and Russia was sanctioned and other western and allied countries (despite knowing it was nonsense) joined in.

You might as a Russian come to believe that evidence didn't matter, that the west could manipulate their populations at will and the idea that there was some "restraint" on western attacks would be shown to be fanciful. You might, as a Russian, become very concerned that you might be attacked and there was a lack of restraint on the west.

The west are blaming Russia for something they didn't do but, also, showing that they know that Russia didn't do it and, more, letting Russia know they framed them, and showing Russia that the evidence doesn't matter. Perhaps, not UK incompetence, maybe, it's all psyops.

...

Ric G , Jan 19, 2019 9:23:12 PM | link
Mr Moon, you have excelled yourself! A brilliant article, worthy of a standing ovation!

'So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief Nurse Of the British Army?' And how embarrassing for our 'fearless' journalists and tabloid truth seekers! Let the crowd cry out 'shame'!

Tom , Jan 19, 2019 9:50:14 PM | link
John Helmer raises an important question, why does the roof of Sergei's house need to be removed? Tongue firmly planted in cheek. The air leakage through the front door of Sergei's house must be through the roof! How else does the fumes from novichok get from the front door handle to the roof? Sure hope they do a proper energy efficient rebuild. Can't go wasting that soon to be arriving at Perfidious Albion's shores horror of horrors, Russian gas. North Sea gas wont last much longer.

http://johnhelmer.net/british-government-demolishes-skripal-house-because-sergei-skripal-poisoned-himself-roof-falls-in-on-theresa-may/

Roy G , Jan 19, 2019 10:53:35 PM | link
So, where are the Skirpals these days? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."

Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker, Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."

Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.

The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

[Dec 30, 2017] Iran - Regime Change Agents Hijack Economic Protests

Notable quotes:
"... Videos published by the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq [MEK], 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , also show mostly small protests despite the MEK's claim of Tens of thousands of people chant "death to dictator" . The MEK, or its "civilian" organization National Council of Resistance of Iran , seem to be most involved in the current protests. Its website is currently filled with the protest issue with a total of ten reports and its head figure issued a supportive statement: ..."
"... This very early engagement of the MEK -its first report was published yesterday at 10:26 am- is extremely suspicious. In 2012 it was reported that Israel had used the MEK terrorist organization to assassinate nuclear scientists in Iran: ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yesterday and today saw some small protests in Iran. They are probably the first stage of a large "regime change" operation run by the U.S. and Israel with the help of Iranian terrorist group.

Earlier this month the White House and the Zionist prepared for a new assault on Iran:

A delegation led by Israel's National Security Adviser met with senior American officials in the White House earlier this month for a joint discussion on strategy to counter Iran's aggression in the Middle East, a senior U.S. official confirmed to Haaretz.

Another report about the meeting quotes Israeli officials on the result:

"[T]he U.S. and Israel see eye to eye the different developments in the region and especially those that are connected to Iran. We reached at understandings regarding the strategy and the policy needed to counter Iran. Our understandings deal with the overall strategy but also with concrete goals, way of action and the means which need to be used to get obtain those goals. "

This is probably a result of the above meeting:

Hundreds took to the streets of Iran's second largest city of Mashad on Thursday to protest over high prices, shouting slogans against the government.

Videos posted on social media showed demonstrators in Mashad in northwest Iran, one of the holiest places in Shia Islam, chanting "death to (President Hassan) Rouhani" and "death to the dictator".

The semi-official ILNA news agency and social media reported demonstrations in other cities in Razavi Khorasan Province, including Neyshabour and Kashmar.

A video of that protest in Mashad showed some 50 people chanting slogans with more bystander just milling around.

Protests against the (neo-)liberal economic policies of the Rohani government in Iran are justified. Official unemployment in Iran is above 12% and there is hardly any economic growth. The people in the streets are not the only ones who are dissatisfied with this:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has repeatedly criticized the government's economic record, said on Wednesday that the nation was struggling with "high prices, inflation and recession", and asked officials to resolve the problems with determination.

On Thursday and today the slogans of some protesters turned the call for economic relief into a call for regime change.

My hunch is that the usual suspects are behind these protests. Note that these started in several cities at the same time. This was not some spontaneous local uproar in one city but had some form of coordination.

Then there is this:

Carl Bildt‏ @carlbildt - 9:38 PM - 28 Dec 2017 from Rome, Lazio

Reports of signals of international satellite TV networks jammed in large cities of Iran. Would be sign of regime fear of today's protests spreading.

A search in various languages finds exactly zero such "reports". Carl Bildt is a former Swedish prime minister. He was recruited in 1973 as a CIA informant and has since grown into a full blown U.S. asset. He was involved in the Ukraine coup and tried to personally profit from it.

The only response to Bildt's tweet was from one Riyad Swed‏ - @SwedRiyad who posted several videos of protests with one of them showing burning police cars.

I am not sure the video is genuine. The account has some unusual attributes (active since September 2016, 655 tweets but only 32 followers?).

Just yesterday one lecture at the CCC "hacker" congress was about the British GHCQ Secret Service and its sock-puppet accounts on Twitter and Facebook. These are used for acquiring human intelligence and for running "regime change" operations. Page 14-18 of the slides (11:20 min) cite from obtained GCHQ papers which lists Iran as one of the targets. The speaker specifically notes a GCHQ account "@2009Iranfree" which was used in generating the protests in Iran after the reelection of then President Ahmedinejad.

Today, Friday and the weekly day off in Iran, several more protest took place in other cities. A Reuters report from today:

About 300 demonstrators gathered in Kermanshah after what Fars called a "call by the anti-revolution" and shouted "Political prisoners should be freed" and "Freedom or death", while destroying some public property. Fars did not name any opposition groups.
...
Footage, which could not be verified, showed protests in other cities including Sari and Rasht in the north, Qom south of Tehran, and Hamadan in the west.

Mohsen Nasj Hamadani, deputy security chief in Tehran province, said about 50 people had rallied in a Tehran square and most left after being asked by police, but a few who refused were "temporarily detained", the ILNA news agency reported.

Some of these protests have genuine economic reasons but get hijacked by other interests:

In the central city of Isfahan, a resident said protesters joined a rally held by factory workers demanding back wages.

"The slogans quickly changed from the economy to those against (President Hassan) Rouhani and the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)," the resident said by telephone.
...
Purely political protests are rare in Iran [...] but demonstrations are often held by workers over layoffs or non-payment of salaries and people who hold deposits in non-regulated, bankrupt financial institutions.
...
Alamolhoda, the representative of Ayatollah Khamenei in northeastern Mashhad, said a few people had taken advantage of Thursday's protests against rising prices to chant slogans against Iran's role in regional conflicts.
...
"Some people had came to express their demands, but suddenly, in a crowd of hundreds, a small group that did not exceed 50 shouted deviant and horrendous slogans such as 'Let go of Palestine', 'Not Gaza, not Lebanon, I'd give my life (only) for Iran'," Alamolhoda said.

Two videos posted by BBC Persian and others I have seen show only small active protest groups with a dozen or so people while many more are just standing by or film the people who are chanting slogans.

Videos published by the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq [MEK], 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , also show mostly small protests despite the MEK's claim of Tens of thousands of people chant "death to dictator" . The MEK, or its "civilian" organization National Council of Resistance of Iran , seem to be most involved in the current protests. Its website is currently filled with the protest issue with a total of ten reports and its head figure issued a supportive statement:

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, saluted the heroic people of Kermanshah and other cities who rose up today chanting "death or freedom", "death to Rouhani", "death to the dictator", and "political prisoners must be freed", and protested against high prices, poverty and corruption.

She said, "Yesterday Mashhad, today Kermanshah, and tomorrow throughout Iran; this uprising has tolled the death knell for the overthrow of the totally corrupt dictatorship of the mullahs, and is the rise of democracy, justice and popular sovereignty.

This very early engagement of the MEK -its first report was published yesterday at 10:26 am- is extremely suspicious. In 2012 it was reported that Israel had used the MEK terrorist organization to assassinate nuclear scientists in Iran:

psychohistorian , Dec 29, 2017 2:56:15 PM | 1

Thanks for the Iran analysis b

I saw the reports of unrest in Iran and know that the pot is being stirred externally.

Trump needs his war to be a real US president, Netanyahoo needs cover for his crimes and SA needs cover for its war crimes.

The carousel keeps spinning faster and faster. How many will die when it crashes? Sad.....and hard to watch

james , Dec 29, 2017 3:19:45 PM | 2
thanks for this b... i agree with your 3rd to last paragraph and the line in the 2nd to last one "Mossad and the MEK are not shy of killing random people." it seems these paid stooges - carl bildt and etc, are quite happy to try another regime change/ green revolution on iran.. everything has been headed in this direction for some time.. usa/israel saber rattling towards iran 24/7, financial sanctions and etc. etc. it never stops.. these neo-con regime change artists get extremely tiring and predictable..

[Dec 28, 2017] The CIA as Organized Crime How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror. ..."
"... Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys." ..."
"... Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further. ..."
Nov 27, 2016 | www.amazon.com
Alan Dale on November 27, 2016

5.0 out of 5 stars An Essential Addition to an Essential Body of Work

Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."

By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror.

Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."

Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack; The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.

felixnola on December 6, 2016

5.0 out of 5 stars The Truth About the CIA and What is Instore For You

If you want the inside scoop on the CIA and it's criminal past; this is the book. Additionally, why the Phoenix Program is pertinent for our own times. This book connects the dots.

If you have been wondering why Homeland Security has fusion centers; why the USA Anti-Patriot Act, NDAA and Rex 84 have been passed by Congress; you will get your answer here.

A book every intelligent American needs to read and place in a prominent place in their library. Oh, and don't forget after you read it; spread the word !!! (this book is based upon actual face to face interviews and documents)

Jay Trout on January 2, 2017

5.0 out of 5 stars A crucial tool to understanding present reality. An absolute must read.

Run, don't walk, and get yourself a copy of this book. The author has been warning us for decades about the clear and present danger that is the CIA I was unaware of Valentine's work for most of those years, perhaps because our media outlets (even the "anti-establishment" ones like Democracy Now and The Intercept) have been compromised. Valentine's work has been suppressed since his ground-breaking book on the Phoenix Program.

Not that I didn't know anything about the sordid history. I knew about MK-Ultra, some of the agency's drug running and empire-building exploits. This work goes much deeper and paints a much bigger picture. The extent of the agency's influence is much greater than I had imagined.

This is not another history book about dirty tricks. It is not just about our insane foreign policy and empire building. The cancer of corruption, of outright crime, has metastasized into every agency of the government right here in the US itself. Those dirty tricks and crimes have become domestic policy- in fusion centers and Homeland Security, in the militarization of local police and in Congress, from Wall Street to Main Street. Border Patrol, the DEA, Justice and State have all been compromised.

Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further.

The problem is now. We are the new targets.

Read it and weep, but for God's sake, please read it.
A highly informative and comprehensive book, and a scathing, fearless indictment of government corruption.
I cannot overstate it's importance.

Andrew E. Belshaw on December 6, 2016

Disguising Obama's Dirty War Chapter 22

I just picked up this book and have not read it yet--but I am writing this to CORRECT THE RECORD regarding very basic information. There are 446 PAGES (not 286, as listed above). 160 Pages is a big difference--obviously, QUALITY is more important than quantity--but I do feel the listing needs be corrected.

The "Inside Look" feature is also cutting off the last 9 chapters of the book, which are as follows:

PART IV: MANUFACTURING COMPLICITY: SHAPING THE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW

John C. Landon on January 2, 2017

Expose of the CIA mafia

This is a devastating and must-read study of the social and political calamity created by the CIA over the last sixty years. The portrait shows the criminal character of the agency and finally of the government it is said to serve. The portrait is a double shock because it shows not just a sordid corruption but a malevolent 'dark side' mafia-style corruption of american civilization and government. That the CIA controls the drug trade is not the least of the stunning revelations of this history.

[Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

Highly recommended!
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. http://petras.lahaine.org/

[Dec 27, 2017] Bannon Puts Jared Through the Grinder

Notable quotes:
"... After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank. ..."
"... "[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level." ..."
"... Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. ..."
"... Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached. ..."
"... There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats." ..."
"... Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.) ..."
"... Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation. ..."
"... President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it." ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.politico.com

Former Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon milled his former Oval Office colleague Jared Kushner into a bloody chunk of battle sausage this week and smeared him across the shiny pages of Vanity Fair . You've got to read Bannon's quote three or four times to fully savor the tang of its malice and cruelty. After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank.

"[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level."

Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. So what was the big man in the Barbour coat up to?

That Bannon and Kushner skirmished during their time together in the White House has been long established. Kushner advocated the sacking FBI Director James B. Comey, for example, and Bannon opposed it. He later told 60 Minutes that the firing was maybe the worst mistake in "modern political history" because it precipitated the hiring of the special counsel and had thereby expanded the investigation.

Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached.

Bannon's gripe against Kushner in Vanity Fair continues: He claims that Donald Trump's disparaging tweets about Attorney General Jeff Sessions were designed to provide "cover" for Kushner by steering negative media attention toward Sessions and away from Kushner as he was scheduled to testify before a Senate committee.

There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats."

Getting mauled by Steve Bannon might not be the worst thing to happen to the president's son-in-law this week. He and Ivanka were sued by a private attorney for failing to disclose assets from 30 investment funds on their federal financial disclosure forms. Perhaps more ominous for Kushner, and according to the New York Times , federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records about Kushner's family's real estate business. "There is no indication that the subpoena is related to the investigation being conducted by Robert S. Mueller III," the Times allowed. Yeah, but wouldn't you want to be there when Mueller's team invites Bannon in to talk to him about the Vanity Fair article, and they ask him, "What did you mean about Jared taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff? Like, what stuff?"

Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.)

Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation.

President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it."

Everybody, perhaps, except former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Appearing on CNN , Clapper used direct language to bind former KGB officer Putin to Trump tighter than a girdle to a paunch. "[Putin] knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said. "I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president."

Writing in Newsweek , Jeff Stein collected other tell-tale signs of Trump's cooptation: He refused to take Russian meddling in the election seriously. He responds favorably to Putin's praise and seems to crave more. He dismisses worries about his circle's connections to Kremlin agents before the election and during the transition -- and he tried to call off the Flynn investigation.

It's enough to make you wonder why Bannon thinks Kushner is the enemy, not Trump.

******

If you've read this far, you're probably disappointed that more didn't happen in the Trump Tower scandal this week. Sue me in small claims court via email to [email protected] . My email alerts never believed in collusion, my Twitter feed is set to cut a plea deal with Mueller, and my RSS feed has several crisis PR firms on retainer.

[Dec 27, 2017] Putin may be in more trouble than we know

Was not Navalny a failed McFaul project ? And figure of past, of the failed "white color revolution" of 2011-2012.
Dec 27, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

Opinion A column or article in the Opinions section (in print, this is known as the Editorial Pages). December 26 at 6:54 PM

VLADIMIR PUTIN boasts of popularity ratings that Western leaders, Donald Trump included, can only dream of -- 85 percent and above since Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Yet Mr. Putin remains unwilling to test those numbers against real competition. On Monday, the state election commission banned his most popular opponent, Alexei Navalny, from running in the presidential election scheduled for March 18 -- meaning that Mr. Putin will face no serious opposition to obtaining another six-year term.

Mr. Navalny, who has attracted a broad following across Russia by campaigning against corruption, was proscribed on the basis of trumped-up fraud charges that the European Court of Human Rights ruled invalid . His real offenses were helping to lead opposition to Mr. Putin's last reelection, in 2012; producing videos documenting Kremlin criminality, such as the more than $1 billion in property amassed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev; and bringing out tens of thousands of followers in cities across Russia this year to denounce the regime.

Mr. Navalny was credited with 27 percent of the vote when he ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013, and his presentation of his case against Mr. Medvedev had been viewed 25.7 million times on YouTube as of Tuesday. Still, the conventional political wisdom in Moscow holds that Mr. Putin could easily best Mr. Navalny in the presidential election, bolstering both his international and domestic credibility.

He nevertheless prefers to stage a Potemkin vote in which his only challengers will be two perennial candidates, one Communist and one ultra-nationalist, and Ksenia Sobchak , a 36-year-old celebrity who has called the election "a high-budget show." Mr. Navalny has now called for a boycott, which means that the Kremlin's reported goal of a 70 percent turnout may be impossible to reach, barring fraud. In one recent poll, only 58 percent said they would vote.

... ... ...

[Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

Highly recommended!
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Rhett , Dec 26, 2017 2:18:30 PM | 20

I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.

Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian plan.

The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot. Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to end sanctions against Russia.

Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the world's favor in the long run.

Sid2 , Dec 26, 2017 3:17:40 PM | 27
@20

there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."

The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.

To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence. Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As with:

"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."

this is b's link in URL form here:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking

Oriental Voice , Dec 26, 2017 3:56:16 PM | 35
@20:

I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and the ME. Credit to b.

On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt.

But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future.

USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.

[Dec 27, 2017] Wayne Masden - Five Eyes and Color Revolutions

Just a reminder...
Notable quotes:
"... taking control of cell phone and social media networks used for socio-political uprisings. ..."
May 26, 2015 | Strategic Culture Foundation
A recent release of Edward Snowden-provided classified PowerPoint presentation from the National Security Agency (NSA) provides a rather detailed description of how the FIVE EYES signals intelligence alliance of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand has conspired with the promoters of social media-based revolutions, such as the "Arab Spring", to bring about the collapse of democratically-elected or otherwise stable governments. However, the PowerPoint slides were partially redacted in key areas by the dubious censors of First Look Media, financed by e-Bay founder and multi-billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

The PowerPoint slides illustrate how, in November 2011, the NSA; Canada's Communications Security Establishment (CSE), now Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), the Defense Signals Directorate (DSD) of Australia, now the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD); New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB); and Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) developed a method for not only monitoring but taking control of cell phone and social media networks used for socio-political uprisings.

The program, known as "Synergizing Network Analysis Tradecraft", was developed by the FIVE EYES's Network Tradecraft Advancement Team or "NTAT".

... ... ...

The slides show that among the countries where mobile application servers were targeted by the FIVE EYES were France, Cuba, Senegal, Morocco, Switzerland, Bahamas, and Russia. The information targeted by the Western signals intelligence partners included "geolocation and network ownership information for each IP address" that consisted of "network owner name, carrier name, ASN (advanced service network), continent, country, region, city, latitude and longitude, and any other related details". Not of interest to FIVE EYES were such applications as Google, mobile banking, and iTunes.

[Dec 27, 2017] Coup detat: A Practical Handbook by Edward N. Luttwak

Notable quotes:
"... Luttwak identifies conditions that make countries vulnerable to a coup, and he outlines the necessary stages of planning, from recruitment of coconspirators to postcoup promises of progress and stability. But much more broadly, his investigation of coups-updated for the twenty-first century-uncovers important truths about the nature of political power. ..."
"... I found the book fascinating in its presentation of analytic tools for assessing the potential for successful a coup based on the concentration of power in ethnic groups and in the organization of a country's security agencies. In many cases these agencies are structured more to deal with internal threats to the regime from each other rather than external enemies! ..."
Apr 11, 2016 | www.amazon.com
Harvard University Press ISBN 9780674737266, Publication: April 2016 304 pages 5-1/2 x 8-1/4 inches Coup d'État astonished readers when it first appeared in 1968 because it showed, step by step, how governments could be overthrown. Translated into sixteen languages, it has inspired anti-coup precautions by regimes around the world.

In addition to these detailed instructions, Edward Luttwak 's revised handbook offers an altogether new way of looking at political power-one that considers, for example, the vulnerability to coups of even the most stable democracies in the event of prolonged economic distress.

The world has changed dramatically in the past half century, but not the essence of the coup d'état. It still requires the secret recruitment of military officers who command the loyalty of units well placed to seize important headquarters and key hubs in the capital city. The support of the armed forces as a whole is needed only in the aftermath, to avoid countercoups. And mass support is largely irrelevant, although passive acceptance is essential. To ensure it, violence must be kept to a minimum. The ideal coup is swift and bloodless. Very violent coups rarely succeed, and if they trigger a bloody civil war they fail utterly.

Luttwak identifies conditions that make countries vulnerable to a coup, and he outlines the necessary stages of planning, from recruitment of coconspirators to postcoup promises of progress and stability. But much more broadly, his investigation of coups-updated for the twenty-first century-uncovers important truths about the nature of political power.

Related Links 5.0 out of 5 stars

Phoenix Without Ashes on December 14, 2016

Takeovers for Smart Dummies

This is a new version of an earlier 1968 edition of the same book, with updated examples. I had always imagined that coups were confined to 3rd world banana republics, but was surprised to find that Lutwak's definition of a coup, successful or not, included both France and Italy, and that coups, as opposed to revolutions, were the more common method of seizing power.

I found the book fascinating in its presentation of analytic tools for assessing the potential for successful a coup based on the concentration of power in ethnic groups and in the organization of a country's security agencies. In many cases these agencies are structured more to deal with internal threats to the regime from each other rather than external enemies!

Most of the book was very well written, but Chapter 7, "The Execution of the Coup D'Etat" which painted a hypothetical scenario of how a coup could take place seemed fictional and didn't play well with the actual case studies covered in the rest of the book. Appendix C was a useful list of 20th century coups organized by region and country.

Previously I'd read Luttwak's "Strategy" and "Strategy of the Byzantine Empire." Both were immensely enjoyable. The author's style and depth is always both interesting and engaging. It was a good read that I think that other political junkies might enjoy.

Robert Mosher on April 9, 2011
A Tour de Force Effort

Coup d'etat, A Practical Handbook, Edward Luttwak, The Penguin Press, London, ©1968 Edward Luttwak

I first read this work at university shortly after it was published and have kept it near ever since. Edward Luttwak has in fact written a "handbook" that in five chapters offers clear and concise insights into the theory and the mechanics of the transfer of political power via the use or threatened use of armed force. In this surprisingly compact volume, he discusses what is a coup d'etat, when is it possible, and how to plan and execute a coup d'etat. Furthermore, he links this analysis to the historical record, repeatedly citing real world examples that were the basis for his work. Finally, he provides some 20 pages of appendices that provide much of the historical record and analytical background to the book's main theses. I had an opportunity to test Mr. Luttwak's work in December 1979.

I was then on duty as an intelligence watch officer at the Department of State in Washington as Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan.

Although the Soviet Union claimed that its forces had been invited in by the regime in Kabul, the arrival and movement of those forces in Kabul made it soon evident that their actions, which meticulously followed Luttwak's script, were intended to give them full and unimpeded sole control of Kabul and Afghanistan.

This small volume represents a valuable contribution to the political scientist's understanding of how armed political changes work and to the historian's understanding of how such changes have taken place over the years - this book is highly recommended and may be one of the most valuable single volumes in your library.

[Dec 26, 2017] The role of intelligence agencies and NGOs in color revolution is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) look like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless (and well paid) demonstrators and then institute a regime change installing their puppets projecting on them authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor

Color revolutions are false flag operations of regime change based on deception, fueling the resentment and delegitimization+ of the elected government and fake promises to population.
Notable quotes:
"... color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception. ..."
"... It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership. ..."
"... Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks. ..."
"... History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. ..."
"... to help deconstruct the deception ..."
"... A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ ..."
Dec 26, 2017 | colorrevolutionsandgeopolitics.blogspot.com

Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader immediately wonder what a "color revolution" is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.

Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:

" Color revolution(s) is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events a revolutionary wave .

"Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance , also called civil resistance . Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions havebeen [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organizing creative non-violent resistance.

"These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon's Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005), in Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq's Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution (1989), but failed in Iran's Green Revolution (2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian ."

What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception.

It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.

Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9E75GWFDMec/SjXWwi-wPnI/AAAAAAAAAmc/Jlt2fAVGcgQ/s400/IranProtestor.jpg

The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive, so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often -- or in what context -- they have fallen prey.

Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.

But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.

Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.

http://bmpr.com/chip_martin/blogs/images/chip_martin/Skyyad5.jpg (Legs for educational purposes only)

Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.

It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.

Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.

Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.

Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.

And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception .

But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe. A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ . It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive) is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.

Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.

As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.

It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer this site.

"Never utter these words: 'I do not know this, therefore it is false.' One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge." --Apothegm of Narada

[Dec 26, 2017] A "color revolution" is under way in the United States by the Saker

This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
Jan 28, 2017 | thesaker.is

The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

... ... ...

It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble").

It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.

And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

J on January 28, 2017 · at 5:40 am UTC

Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far. Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to deal with relation.

Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his wife.

blue on January 28, 2017 · at 6:26 am UTC

My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?)

So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.

J on January 28, 2017 · at 7:07 am UTC

He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.

We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.

we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally out side of east Asia.

J.L.Seagull on January 28, 2017 · at 8:26 am UTC

I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled support.

Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words.

Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen.

The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in power.

J on January 29, 2017 · at 4:52 am UTC

J.L.S

Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.

Sir Humphrey Appleby on January 28, 2017 · at 10:26 am UTC

Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class." Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."

I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with homogeneous interests.

Anonymous on January 28, 2017 · at 1:32 pm UTC

A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest.

He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.

[Dec 25, 2017] The USA as neocons occupied country

Apr 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
XXX, April 28, 2017 at 06:29 PM
Sanjait,

"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "

I think you are wrong here.

Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised (immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)

Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.

All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would be greater ?

In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:

  1. The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
  2. While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the policies.
  3. Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties no longer represent the will of the people.
  4. Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
  5. The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves, their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
  6. While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the $400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM, neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
  7. The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.

The level of subservience to neocon agenda in Trump administration might well be higher then in previous administration. And "make America first" was already transformed into "full spectrum dominance" == "America uber alles". http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/deutschland-uber-alles-and-america-first-in-song

8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure, in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of $40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).

[Dec 25, 2017] The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
Dec 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017

While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.

By Dennis J Bernstein

In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal to block the resolution).

I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .

Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.

Richard Silverstein:

The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements. Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.

One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.

In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0.

But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.

This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for that.

This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption of US foreign policy by people like this.

Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's investigation.

Silverstein:

That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if it is not mentioned explicitly.

Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to Israel.

Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.

Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.

Silverstein:

Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.

Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be problematic?

Silverstein:

It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.

We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.

My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the interests of the Palestinians.

Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears to be part of an ethnic cleansing.

Silverstein:

The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until now.

The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself. But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and acceptable as a mediator.

When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions there.

Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli government to try to intercede at the United Nations.

Silverstein:

I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.

Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that regard and what are the implications?

Silverstein:

Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will pass easily.

The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be many more.

As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.

By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom . You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net .

Drew Hunkins , December 23, 2017 at 5:37 pm

As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:

1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras

I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a progressive in direction.

Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm

Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm

Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm

If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more illuminating.

SocraticGadfly , December 23, 2017 at 6:10 pm

That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.

SocraticGadfly , December 23, 2017 at 6:05 pm

While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.

In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm

Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.

JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am

It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.

The leaked emails showed the corruption plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.

Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm

The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not defined as an enemy.

Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm

The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they should.

Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am

@Annie

"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."

You and me both .

From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well

The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.

Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case is correct.

People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.

Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation tries to prove hopelessly

Herman , December 24, 2017 at 10:54 am

"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one.

Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm

The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype seems to apply it selectively.

mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm

You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).

There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.

But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.

Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban (Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.

alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm

So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.

Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short stayovers for them at some CIA black site?

So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.

Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm

He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.

JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm

This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.

1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.

2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.

3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.

4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for all.

Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn "Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into "Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.

War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness to victimize millions of people.
"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid sale of souls.

And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists.
"Let's talk about Russian influence"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/

mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm

Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that, and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.

mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm

There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm

A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in the US.

backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm

A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.

Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.

Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would they?

Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want that, would they?

Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm

I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus, Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry, this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.

JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am

It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings. Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.

Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am

I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe

Jeff Blankfort , December 24, 2017 at 12:18 am

Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand, one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.

He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of Crimea.

Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.

This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which, due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state visits there in the last year and a half.

Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at having to abstain.

Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am

The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.

argos , December 24, 2017 at 7:00 am

He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government

JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am

"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US"

We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g.
"Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital

This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly controlled by the Israelis.

alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am

"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "

Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.

"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto."

Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.

For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.

Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am

Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection.

Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.

Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am

I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

argos , December 24, 2017 at 6:57 am

The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.

Herman , December 24, 2017 at 10:47 am

What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine control of its borders.

With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.

Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?

As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.

Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm

As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.

The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm

FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story.

$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia, public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its (Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a "moron" for some seeming contradiction.

I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war.

Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US politics. Just sayin'.

I wish it were otherwise.

Taras 77 , December 24, 2017 at 6:35 pm

https://www.therussophile.org/virus-found-inside-dnc-server-is-linked-to-a-company-based-in-pakistan.html/

This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW

Good site, BTW.

Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm

I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/us/06leak.html?hp

In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm

Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .

P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm

Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence.

[Dec 25, 2017] The USA as neocons occupied country

Apr 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
XXX, April 28, 2017 at 06:29 PM
Sanjait,

"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "

I think you are wrong here.

Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised (immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)

Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.

All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would be greater ?

In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:

  1. The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
  2. While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the policies.
  3. Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties no longer represent the will of the people.
  4. Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
  5. The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves, their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
  6. While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the $400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM, neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
  7. The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.

The level of subservience to neocon agenda in Trump administration might well be higher then in previous administration. And "make America first" was already transformed into "full spectrum dominance" == "America uber alles". http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/deutschland-uber-alles-and-america-first-in-song

8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure, in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of $40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).

[Dec 24, 2017] Steve Bannon Asked to Testify Before House Intelligence Committee in January - Breitbart

Dec 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

The House Intelligence Committee has asked the former CEO of President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, to appear before them for an interview as part of their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Bannon received a letter this week from the committee. In the letter, the committee requests that he appear in early January, according to Bloomberg:

"The invitation, which didn't come in the form of a subpoena compelling them to testify, was for a "voluntary interview" in the committee's offices, which means it would be held behind closed doors, the official said."

Former Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski also received a letter requesting he speak with the committee in January.

The report further reveals that the letters to Bannon and Lewandowski don't specify reasons for the interview beyond relation to the committee's ongoing investigation into any Russian meddling in the 2016 election. At the time of the report, the committee had not received responses from either Bannon or Lewandowski.

[Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Masha Gessen's Warning Ignored as Dreams of Trumpeachment Dance in Our Heads

Gessen felt that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient public interest, particularly among Republicans.

Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism, immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination -- you know, stuff like that.

Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the Washington political journal The Hill , last summer ,

Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.

Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his epically low approval rating of 32 percent , the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress whose current approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to the U.S. Senate.

[Dec 23, 2017] Neocons and Neoliberals -- Two Masks, One Face by WashingtonsBlog

Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky communism ..."
Nov 10, 2008 | www.washingtonsblog.com

Obama might very well be classified as a "neoliberal". He appears to be appointing leading neoliberals to key positions in his administration .

If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years, we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic outlook.

Nope.

In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism -- not very conservative, huh?)

For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.

As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi writes :

Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.

And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said :

Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism."

So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.

Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.

There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.

If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.

But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.

Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.

Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.

A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9498954186704486?pubid=ld-6193-3093&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonsblog.com&width=747

J R Thompson , September 19, 2012 10:33 PM

This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics, Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability, indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance, we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.

Guest J R Thompson , June 18, 2014 8:12 PM

The Wiki page disagrees with you.

It says that Neo-Conservatives descend from Trotskeyism.

Grey Winters J R Thompson , June 23, 2014 4:28 PM

Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.

Malcolm Scott J R Thompson , November 4, 2016 9:18 PM

Fascism, Communism are just different faces of Totalitarianism or Statism. Fascism gives "private" owners (oligarchs) the illusion of freedom.

MisterReason J R Thompson , November 8, 2015 6:27 AM

Your communist professor lied to you.

Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.

Adnihilo , November 11, 2008 7:16 PM

Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write! I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.

The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since 2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.

Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons and NeoCons.

When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.

Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors, political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate conservative.

There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.

Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of political ideologies.

Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type of leadership, and government they actually want....

Alejandro Moreno Adnihilo , July 21, 2016 2:07 PM

Written 8 years ago and yet STILL true, Sanders and Kucinich are still of, by and for the people.

Dave , December 8, 2012 11:06 AM

Libertarian Party. http://www.lp.org

SuperTech86 Dave , November 11, 2015 3:20 AM

Doesn't do anything to stop the advance of corporatism which ultimately leads to tyranny and fascism.

Ian SuperTech86 , September 5, 2016 6:28 PM

Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.

bosunj , November 10, 2008 5:59 PM

Indeed. One Party. The Corporate party. GOP-DEM are little different than Sunni and Shia! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!

anon bosunj , November 17, 2013 9:43 PM

This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the record.

Mike , November 10, 2008 6:31 PM

You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization" of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.

[Dec 23, 2017] Neocons and Neoliberals -- Two Masks, One Face by WashingtonsBlog

Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky communism ..."
Nov 10, 2008 | www.washingtonsblog.com

Obama might very well be classified as a "neoliberal". He appears to be appointing leading neoliberals to key positions in his administration .

If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years, we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic outlook.

Nope.

In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism -- not very conservative, huh?)

For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.

As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi writes :

Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.

And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said :

Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism."

So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.

Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.

There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.

If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.

But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.

Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.

Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.

A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9498954186704486?pubid=ld-6193-3093&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonsblog.com&width=747

J R Thompson , September 19, 2012 10:33 PM

This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics, Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability, indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance, we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.

Guest J R Thompson , June 18, 2014 8:12 PM

The Wiki page disagrees with you.

It says that Neo-Conservatives descend from Trotskeyism.

Grey Winters J R Thompson , June 23, 2014 4:28 PM

Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.

Malcolm Scott J R Thompson , November 4, 2016 9:18 PM

Fascism, Communism are just different faces of Totalitarianism or Statism. Fascism gives "private" owners (oligarchs) the illusion of freedom.

MisterReason J R Thompson , November 8, 2015 6:27 AM

Your communist professor lied to you.

Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.

Adnihilo , November 11, 2008 7:16 PM

Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write! I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.

The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since 2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.

Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons and NeoCons.

When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.

Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors, political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate conservative.

There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.

Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of political ideologies.

Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type of leadership, and government they actually want....

Alejandro Moreno Adnihilo , July 21, 2016 2:07 PM

Written 8 years ago and yet STILL true, Sanders and Kucinich are still of, by and for the people.

Dave , December 8, 2012 11:06 AM

Libertarian Party. http://www.lp.org

SuperTech86 Dave , November 11, 2015 3:20 AM

Doesn't do anything to stop the advance of corporatism which ultimately leads to tyranny and fascism.

Ian SuperTech86 , September 5, 2016 6:28 PM

Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.

bosunj , November 10, 2008 5:59 PM

Indeed. One Party. The Corporate party. GOP-DEM are little different than Sunni and Shia! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!

anon bosunj , November 17, 2013 9:43 PM

This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the record.

Mike , November 10, 2008 6:31 PM

You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization" of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.

[Dec 23, 2017] Ex-CIA Director John Brennan Testified Before House Intelligence Committee About Election Meddling

Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate (with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
May 23, 2017 | www.npr.org

Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia "brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off. Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to interfere.

In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."

Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign." Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals," and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.

While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.

Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human rights if elected president.

But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely "husbanding it for another day."

On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated "protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the U.S.

Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."

Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"

Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives' emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.

"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and "whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.

He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are "disingenuous."

[Dec 23, 2017] What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say by Philip Giraldi

The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens, especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
May 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous

The Washington Post and a number of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post headlined a front page featured article with Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .

The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."

Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the Americans and British, do so aggressively.

At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.

It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things about today's CIA

Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense.

In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence.

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.

The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers do?

It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result.

How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.

RobinG , May 30, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT

Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.

Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful, rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative speculation, who needs facts?

The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's taking the political line on the DNC emails!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427995-3/whistleblower-cia

Melvin A. Goodman talked about his book, Whistleblower at the CIA: An Insider's Account of the Politics of Intelligence.

animalogic , May 30, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."

"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies .

Anon , May 30, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT

US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/

The Alarmist , May 30, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have been so convinced in their day.

exiled off mainstreet , May 30, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT

It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since 1932.

Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason.

Russ , May 30, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT

Lisa Frank has recently (5/18/2017) written beautifully on the topic of Comey in the FBI: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788

Just as Ms. Frank dissects Comey's background and motivations, so a similar dissection is now in order for Mr. Brennan.

LauraMR , May 30, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article

Renoman , May 30, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

I'll say it again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? The answer is Nothing!

mp , May 30, 2017 at 10:30 am GMT

Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No. Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense".

Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war against Russia.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 10:53 am GMT

@Renoman "[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA"?

Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?

RealAmerican , May 30, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT

How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC? Is that not AIPAC's raison d'etre ?

DanCT , May 30, 2017 at 11:33 am GMT

"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "

Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every federal agency such as the FBI, etc

Wizard of Oz , May 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .

Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of information, especially about people.

alexander , May 30, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh

I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.

The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

Do you ?

Andrei Martyanov , Website May 30, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server

It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface.

"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so not.

Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.

August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F. Tracy

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.

https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/ 

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here – in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland. The trap worked.

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

This CIA director? May 19, 2010 Obama advisor John Brennan speaks about the beauty of Islam

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT

Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter Database

While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

annamaria , May 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/

"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.

Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.

"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."

This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

alexander , May 30, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Excellent quote, Tom.

.And so true.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government schooling* .

Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA

The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland. The trap worked.

What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@Agent76 "

"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal".

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin

Rurik , Website May 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

@annamaria

Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014

I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

PG:

the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

getting to the crux of the matter

when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".

The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

[Dec 23, 2017] Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.

Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Liverpool , December 22, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT

I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.

Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.

Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.

Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live.

Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt. Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked. Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.

[Dec 23, 2017] The Saudi 'Cakewalk' Into Iran The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party. ..."
"... Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil ..."
"... As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well. ..."
"... EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone? ..."
"... "In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites ..."
"... That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites. ..."
"... Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective. ..."
"... Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start. ..."
"... One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Pavlos December 20, 2017 at 11:08 pm

Trump won't get dragged into war, although his conniving nature may try to make it look like that if it serves some ulterior motive of his. Trump will race on his own volition (not get dragged by others) to war because he's already been chomping at the bit for war as evident in how he's been baiting Iran and N. Korea alike, just as Bush baited Saddam Huessein, then bait and switched Osama Bin Laden for Saddam. So if not war with one (Iran), then with the other (N. Korea), or with both.

Why? Because like all Republican politicians, Trump's a businessman and proud of it, (Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.) And because war is good for American business, a lesson that was learned from WWII from which was created the military-industrial-complex and the Permanent War Economy under which we've lived ever since.

That bit's key to understanding the whole unwavering GOP attack on social services and desire to deregulate and privatize everything, not because of evil "socialism" as the Republican constituency is hypnotized with propaganda into believing, but because there's no money to be made in government expenditures otherwise. The whole GOP agenda has been and is about public expense for private gain. All the blather about shrinking the government is smokescreen. The real agenda is about directing all government spending towards private contractors with none wasted on things like social services, medicare, or Social Security.

Economic aspects of politics can't be ignored and separated from social aspects of politics which is how conservatism in America has helped create the current political mess, by turning a blind eye and dittohead to economic matters in order to push the chosen, preferred social agenda.

As Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." So since the US is ruled by money of markets, there can be no getting one's moral back up and all Jesus over social immorality, only to ignore the immorality of the marketplace and thereby fail to push for a moral economy along with a moral society. Such misidentification of the problem will only result in missing the mark, in inappropriate rather than on the mark effective solutions to problems.

Trump is simply a braggart who likes to exaggerate by talking in superlatives, so it's fitting that Trump ran on the GOP ticket, because he's but another child of the Father of Lies, who superlatively lies about his wealth being billions instead of millions to swell his pride in being a mammon worshipper, and going to war is and will be as it certainly has been part and parcel of such hubris.

Fran Macadam , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:22 pm
To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be questioned. And there is the locus of the Likud Israeli party friendship with the Saudis, and Trump is certainly nothing if not onside with his good friend, the Israeli PM.
Fran Macadam , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:40 pm
I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party.
mohammad , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:50 pm
Make no mistake: if there is going to be an attack on Iran by Americans, it is not because MbS wants it, it is because the Americans love war.

I am convinced that most (some 90%) Americans are open or closeted Neo-cons/liberal-interventionists/war-hawks. Some are shamelessly and openly so (John Bolton), but many are so without showing it or even being aware of it. The hawk in them is restlessly waiting for an opening, an excuse, to come out and proclaim what they have ever been

leonard , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:38 am
Don't worry, w Captain Marmalade at the helm, the US will mess this all up by itself just like it has again and again and again.
Kronsteen1963 , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:04 am
Bush 41 dragged us into a coalition war over Kuwait. Clinton dragged us into a coalition war in the Balkans. Bush 43 dragged us into a war in Iraq. Obama dragged us into a secret war when he destabilized Syria and Lybia, which unleashed ISIS. All for the right reasons, of course (sarcasm).

You might be right, but I fail to see how that would be different than the last 30 years.

charles cosimano , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:42 am
Finally.

It should have been done 37 years ago.

Kronsteen1963 , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:47 am
BTW, Politico has a story about how the Obama Administration shot down DEA drug trafficking investigations of Hezbollah to support the Iran nuclear deal. I would like to read your comments about it, particularly in light of the comments you made above about Trump.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

Pro ivic , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:57 am
Parents always tell kids to choose their friends carefully. With pals like Netanyahu and the Saudi bogus "crown prince", Trump clearly didn't follow that advice.
Nelson , says: December 21, 2017 at 3:12 am
That looked like a promotional video made by defense contractors. Anyway it's crazy. If they go to war I hope we stay out of it.
ludo , says: December 21, 2017 at 3:49 am
That video looks like a Nazi's wet dream, I mean the undiluted fascistic element is overwhelming, it's like getting a peek at an alternate dimension, not even a society, of pure militaristic "hathos" festooned by a limitless cloud of lies.

The worst of humanity is engrafted in that video, by which, I mean the unalloyed lying stupidity of war: imperialist expansionism, nationalist revanchism, and plutocratic supremacism, haloed by the grey mist–the dehumanzing pixelated mist–of the most dehumanizing endeavor man can undertake, for the most dehumanizing of modern causes: fascistic capitalism, the kind that fueled WWII (In this latter case, under the guise of religious supremacism or religious survivalism, but, in any case, only an obvious guise as far as the grotesque House of Saud is characteristically concerned).

Adamant , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:03 am
Echoing Noah above, this doesn't appear to be a production of the Saudi government, but having a contingent of the Saudi population gung-ho for a Sunni/Shi'a Ragnarok is concerning in itself. Both KSA and Iran will fight each other to the last Yemeni before any direct conflict arises.

This is the scenario that should be keeping us all up at night:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/20/exclusive-us-making-plans-bloody-nose-military-attack-north/

Floridan , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:04 am
The greatest myth of warfare -- "Once our forces invade the people will rise up against their government and welcome us a liberators."
AB , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:42 am
Fran Macadam: To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be questioned.

It wasn't the royals -- it was the bin Laden family itself. The people who knew Osama best. I never understood why we didn't insists that, with all airplanes grounded, they had to have a US Air Force pilot -- who then would have flown them to Gitmo for a sit-down on their newly famous relative. Instead the highest levels of government -- how high did you have to go to get permission to fly? -- broke into their busy schedules to be briefed and let them go.

The whole thing still stinks. We really need to have an investigation into the role of Saudi Arabia in American foreign policy; especially the Iraq Wars.

In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better.

muad'dib , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:17 am

President Trump's new best friend, MBS, is going to get us dragged into a new war in the region. Watch.

But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House

ROTFLMAO!!!

If the Saudis are foolish enough to try that they will get their ass so thoroughly kicked that "who were the Al Saud?" will a trivial pursuit question on par with "Who were the Romanov's?" 10 years from now, and if the US is foolish enough to let them do that, watch the Global Economy collapse as the Strait of Hormuz gets closed for a few years.

Dr Talon,
The best military in the Middle East is Hezbollah (Trained & equipped by the Iranian, blooded and forged by the Israelis) the only thing they don't have is an air force. Let them have a half way decent air wing, and they would be on par or better than the USMC.

Duke Leto,
All that beautiful hardware has to be put to good use, after all if you don't use it you can't replace it. Think of all that beautiful money to be made in hardware replacement

Noah,

Trump also declined to support Kurdish independence, which the Israeli right supports and would have undermined Iran (which has a restive Kurdish minority) and Iran ally Iraq.

Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan, in that Turkey has the largest Kurdish minority population of all the Middle Eastern countries (about 20% of population) and the largest military in the Middle East. Not a good idea, especially if you don't want them to become buddy buddy with their eastern neighbor.

Oh, did I mention that Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shiite minority (10 to 15% of the population) who isn't exactly thrilled to live under Wahhabi rule.

Watching the Saudis (a country that has to import plumbers from South Asia because it's below the dignity of the locals to be plumbers) getting their asses handed to them, watching the Dumpster's poll rating jump up to the 80% mark before cratering down to 15%, watching the Trump recession that would follow would almost be worth it if I didn't have to suffer the consequences of "Real American's(TM)" idiocy. It would be almost as much fun as watching Brexit.

Michelle , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:05 am
And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?

It's a pretty safe assumption that a President Clinton would work to uphold the treaty her predecessor signed with Iran. Cruz, like the rest of the GOP hawks, would probably (like Trump) be actively working to undermine it and provoke Iran. She'd want more money for social and infrastrucure spending, less for military.

Pavlos has it right. The GOP (and a lot of Democrats) think war is good for business and are happy to funnel obscene amounts of money to the military-industrial complex under the guise of "national security."

Siarlys Jenkins , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:02 am
Underestimating Iran would be a mistake. Trying this in real life would make Iran, very roughly, into "Saudi Arabia's Vietnam."

"What is the national anthem of Saudi Arabia?"
"Onward, Christian Soldiers."

Reminds me of 1975, when I said that the Cuban army marching band was going to adopt a new theme song, "We Are Marching to Pretoria."

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:44 am
It depends on what you imply when saying that it has lit up Arab social media, Rod. "Damn those Saudis are strong!" type of reaction means that social media are lit up. "LOL, what sorry comedian a-holes those Saudis are!" type of reaction also means that social media are lit up.
Ark712 , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:49 am
So we are going to give North Korea a "Bloody nose" and invade Iran where they will welcome us as liberators with flower petals?

Is this what it will finally take Trump supporters to realize they made a mistake, or will they once again move the goal posts?

I am sure they will say "hurr-durr Clinton voted for the war", as if Republicans were not calling anyone against it a traitor.

collin , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:09 am
I can't decide if this truly 'government' backed or some Saudia wackos let their freak loose. At least the wackos are going after Iran and not the US. It is probably really nothing than an expensive Youtube comment but it does indicate that Saudia Arabia population really desires War somewhere and somehow.

Although this is probably forgotten in 1 month, the Middle East appears to be following similar paths as Europe in the 1900 – 1914. We have lots of secret Allies and treaties with enormous tensions that is hungry for a battle.

SDS , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:15 am
"And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?" Probably not at all .. Which is what's so tragic, really .
Gunner , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:05 pm
The Saudis couldn't invade a Dunkin Doughnuts without the West helping them.
TR , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Paul: Keep your jokes to yourself. They're too painful.

Noah172: Astute analysis and advice.

EngineerScotty , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:58 pm
The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton would probably be too hawkish for my tastes–and certainly she wouldn't enjoy strong relations with Russia (given evidence, in this hypothetical, that Putin was actively interfering in the election to support her opponent)–but it wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump. Clinton would still have a functioning diplomatic corps, instead of sacking half the State Department. She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter. She'd likely be not trying to undermine the Iran deal. And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS, as Trump has been eagerly doing.

Really. At what point does the "as bad as Trump's foreign policy has been, Clinton wudda been worse" refrain stop? Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ–he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him. And he has none of Johnson's domestic achievements.

Hound of Ulster , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:24 pm
The last time an Arab dictator tried to attack the Iranians he could only get a draw that bankrupted him and lead, by a series of second-order consequences, to his downfall.

The Iranians had just, when they were attacked by Iraq, had thier revolution and had liquidated thier officer corps. Think about that. Iranians as polity may, for the most part, dislike the rule of the clerics, but they are intensely patriotic and will fight to the last man/woman to defend the Persian homeland. Underestimate them at your peril.

George , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm
When Iran's proxies in Yemen -- the Houthis -- are launching missiles at airports and the Royal Palace, I don't think this type video is very surprising and as propaganda goes really a big deal. It is pretty low level saber rattling if it is a Saudi Government produc, or what you would see a million times over among Americans if it is the work of just a bunch of young Saudi yahoos. Oh, and MSAGA -- Make Saudi Arabia Great Again!
leonard , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:09 pm
So Charles Cosimano. I'm assuming you'll be the first to sign up?
TTT , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Israel has never fought side-by-side with the US in any of the wars it has sent the us to fight [and die for and pay for] at the instigation of the settlers/occupiers.

Since the U.S. has never fought any wars for Israel, that makes the score 0:0 then.

Noah172 , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:23 pm
muad'dib wrote:

But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House

What ignorant drivel. Clinton is plenty hawkish (she cheered on Trump's April missile strike on Assad, and urged him to go much further). Moreover, as I wrote above, this video seems to be youthful fan fiction, not carrying any Saudi government imprimatur (let alone endorsement from Trump). Rod is speculating that the US will eventually join Saudi Arabia in a war against Iran, but Rod is no seer, whatever his other attributes.

Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan

Poppycock. Trump is hardly Erdogan's poodle. Trump gave heavy armaments to the Syrian Kurds (O had limited their support to small arms) and wants to move our embassy to Jerusalem, both decisions angering Erdogan. Erdogan would also liked to have seen Assad deposed.

Elijah , says: December 21, 2017 at 4:23 pm
I'm not going to offer an opinion on the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's army, and neither should you. Remember how everyone warned us about Iraq's Republican Guard?) Few of us know what we're talking about. On the larger point: are you all taking drugs? Some video "lights up" Arab social media and therefore Trump is taking us to war against Iran?? What?!

Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil

Merry Christmas!

FoolMeOnce , says: December 21, 2017 at 4:48 pm
We should warn the Saudis not to choose vain, arrogant, bloodthirsty plutocrats as leaders. Oh .
grumpy realist , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Muad'dib:

+1000

(especially the Straits of Hormuz aspect. The Iranians just have to mine it so that one or more cargo ships get holed and got to the bottom at strategic bends and nobody ain't shipping no Saudi Oil nowhere. Have fun with $300/bbl oil economies, guys China will make out like a bandit, considering it's now the world leader in solar power.

james , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
Noah172 , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:58 pm
EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone?

She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter

Clinton has insulted Putin any number of times on social media and in interviews. On the Colbert program just last September, she claimed that he worked against her election because of sexism, and claimed that he "manspread" during a meeting with her.

And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS

Netanyahu and Erdogan do not get along, so it's pretty hard to please both of them simultaneously. Like muad'dib, Scotty has it in his head that Trump is a poodle of Erdogan, but the latter would disagree. Heavy weapons to Syrian Kurds, Jerusalem -- Erdogan is not fully pleased with Trump.

If Scotty thinks the Clintons are hostile to Saudi Arabia, he hasn't been paying attention (does he ever?).

Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ -- he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Fran Macadam , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:46 pm
"In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?

No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: December 22, 2017 at 6:22 am

As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.

Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already.

Elijah , says: December 22, 2017 at 7:47 am
"Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already."

Exactly.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: December 22, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.
EngineerScotty , says: December 22, 2017 at 3:44 pm
That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?

No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.

Unless the "elites" you are talking about are the Saudis–who are well-known for flooding the market with cheap crude periodically to undercut the competition (they can still produce oil for far less than anywhere else), and have many reasons to be suspicious of Russia–this makes no sense.

Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective.

And if you don't think that either the Saudis or the American oil industry have the ear of Trump, you're smokin' something.

The "elites" that oppose Trump have rather little political power at the present moment. Don't confuse cultural elites (who don't like the Donald one bit) with the gazillionaires who actual control the petroleum industry, and are more than happy to do business with whoever is in charge in Washington.

Trump–ignorant and fatuous and unworldly as he may be–is an "elite" by virtue of the office he holds. Do not forget that.

EngineerScotty , says: December 22, 2017 at 3:57 pm

Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.

Fair enough–though I think that Hillary's foreign policy would likely be similar to that of her husband. Far from ideal, but not disastrous. Of course, Bill got to hold office in a time when the Soviet Union (and its constituent parts) was in shambles, China was still a third-world country, North Korea was no threat to anyone but South Korea, Islamic extremism was far less of a problem, and even the Israelis and Palestinians were talking, and on roughly equal terms. Now is a much more dangerous time.

One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin.

But there is something else. Trump seems to think that international diplomacy ought to be conducted like real-estate deals: Two high-rollers (CEOs or heads of state) meet on the golf course, hash out a deal, and the lawyers work out the details; and that having a large staff of people trained in understanding a potentially-hostile foreign country is simply unnecessary. In short, he acts as though he believes the entire system of international diplomatic protocol, is a racket. Perhaps he has a point here; and perhaps he does not–as the old saying goes, don't knock down a wall unless you know what loads it is bearing.

But you'll notice that neither Russia, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran, or Germany, nor any other player on the world stage, have been engaging in similar purges of their diplomatic services.

[Dec 23, 2017] Imperial arrogance and paranoia in full display

Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

what is interesting is that whuile answering "yes" about Russian interference in election is safe answer, the real quesion is whehther Russian intergfernce exceed in scope British (Stele dossier), Israel (via Kushner) and Saudi interference to name a few. If no this is a witch hunt. Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalm and empire is unlear. It does has its own interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia halped to depose legitimate goverment in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.

May 11, 2016

Full transcript Acting FBI director McCabe and others testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.

ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.

STEWART: Yes, Senator.

ROGERS: Yes I do.

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.

MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.

MCCABE: Yes.

WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.

I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign?

MCCABE: I absolutely do.

WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.

MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.

WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the type of tactics that Russia has used.

Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform -- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.

COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?

Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though, the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.

WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for Admiral Rogers.

COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us -- each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.

Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for what that strategy would be.

WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind the intervention in the French elections?

ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?

I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make a whole simple declaratory statement.

WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BURR: Senator Rubio?

RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?

MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.

RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?

COATS: A resounding no, from me.

POMPEO: No.

MCCABE: No, Senator.

ROGERS: No, sir.

STEWART: No, Senator.

CARDILLO: No, sir.

... ... ...

POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right, this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.

MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.

RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you -- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election, efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.

To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics; particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not simply something that happened in the past.

MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.

POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's -- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.

COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where it's having a significant impact.

ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.

But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.

... ... ...

COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive -- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.

They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.

Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in -- and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought to take a look at.

... ... ...

WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people about where the investigation he's been running stands.

At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.

So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.

Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes or no?

MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...

(CROSSTALK)

WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about conversations, that's yes or no answer.

MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and the president of the United States had that conversation.

WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of the investigation?

MCCABE: I will.

WYDEN: Thank you.

Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?

POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.

WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question, this is a global threat hearing. Were you...

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: Tell me...

(CROSSTALK)

WYDEN: Were you aware?

POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.

WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.

POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...

WYDEN: So...

POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...

WYDEN: You won't answer the question...

POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.

WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.

POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations. I -- I... (CROSSTALK)

WYDEN: The Yates warning was...

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.

WYDEN: OK.

POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...

WYDEN: OK.

POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.

WYDEN: OK.

Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about this?

COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...

WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?

We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?

MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.

They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?

RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats, to volunteer.

My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration. And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.

And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?

COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need to be -- be given attention to.

This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats, how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put a strategy in place.

And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that -- for the basis of making policy decisions.

I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.

RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?

POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're doing our work in the right way.

Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration -- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...

RISCH: Yes.

POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.

RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.

POMPEO: Yes sir.

RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.

WARNER: Thank you Senator.

Senator Heinrich.

HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?

MCCABE: No sir.

HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation." And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more direct.

Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?

MCCABE: No, sir.

HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?

MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...

HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?

MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details of that.

HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?

MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.

HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported Director Comey?

MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.

MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.

We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.

HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the -- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?

MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.

HEINRICH: Sure.

MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.

HEINRICH: Thank you.

Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.

COATS: As a broad matter, yes.

HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would you take?

COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed. I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.

HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?

COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.

HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.

BURR: Senator Collins?

COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.

Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge?

MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.

COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.

MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.

COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?

MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to the developments this week? Absolutely.

COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?

MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.

COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?

MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I -- I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.

That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is a target, is that correct?

MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.

COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?

MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.

COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.

MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative practice.

COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...

MCCABE: I see, I see...

COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.

COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?

MCCABE: It is not.

COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target, is that correct?

MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.

COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and what's not.

MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.

COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...

ROGERS: French.

COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.

Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?

ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.

To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?

COLLINS: Thank you.

BURR: Senator King.

KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.

On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts.

As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is that statement still accurate?

MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.

KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?

MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.

KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that an accurate statement?

MCCABE: It is...

KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?

MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.

KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?

MCCABE: I would not.

KING: Thank you.

Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that being up followed up on by this investigation.

Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state level election infrastructure.

MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.

So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with -- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.

KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.

Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed, was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications in that incident?

ROGERS: No.

KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?

ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.

KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....

ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.

KING: All right, thank you.

Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to the firing of Director Comey?

COATS: I was not.

KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?

COATS: There were no discussions.

KING: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

BURR: Thank you Senator King.

Senator Lankford.

LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.

Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?

MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...

LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?

MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.

LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?

MCCABE: No, sir.

LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?

MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.

LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?

MCCABE: No sir.

L.. ... ...

MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.

I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?

MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are also a fiercely independent group.

MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?

MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.

MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?

Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?

CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...

MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?

CARDILLO: Absolutely.

MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?

CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.

MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph) their involvement.

CARDILLO: We share that.

MANCHIN: General?

STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks.

MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...

MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?

ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.

COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that continues in this new job.

POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.

MANCHIN: Great.

(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.

MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.

But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is -- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within our country, really every part of our country?

Anybody on the gangland?

MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...

MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?

MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat. It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.

... ... ..

COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.

(LAUGHTER)

COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016 and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.

These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates, in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.

Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January 18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified version of the public to use," end quote.

I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in the transcript.

(LAUGHTER)

Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping with these past practices.

To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?

POMPEO: Yes.

COTTON: Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United States.

In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending bill.

I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.

Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?

COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.

COTTON: Director Pompeo?

POMPEO: None.

COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential election.

COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I don't think I can read it now.

COTTON: Thank you.

I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.

Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?

ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.

COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?

ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate the actual tenets that...

(CROSSTALK)

COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?

ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.

COTTON: It seems hard to do.

ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.

COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information, or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?

ROGERS: Probably not.

COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel. I assume you have open door policies.

ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.

COTTON: They can come to this committee.

So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702 (inaudible).

MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.

COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly, and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.

Thank you.

BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.

Senator Harris?

HARRIS: Thank you.

Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with this committee during the course of this open hearing.

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?

MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity, including that investigation.

HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?

MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.

HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation, in addition to your role?

MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.

HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?

MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.

HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?

MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California. So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been fired?

MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.

HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.

HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?

MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.

HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would make every effort to get you what you need?

MCCABE: I absolutely will.

HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?

MCCABE: That's correct.

HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?

MCCABE: No, ma'am.

HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?

MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.

HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?

MCCABE: No, ma'am.

HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are -- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals staff are in everything we do every day.

HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission. But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: Thank you.

And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI, given the firing of Director Comey?

MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.

This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what they need to do.

HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number of people who are in acting positions of authority?

MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats; stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.

HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

BURR: Thank you.

Senator King?

Second round, five minutes each.

Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me. And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the Russians.

And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.

POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization.

And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge of that conversation either.

WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?

POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.

WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.

POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.

WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.

WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits, resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions. These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.

Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?

ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government to the private sector as overall responsibility here.

We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability, the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.

I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.

WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director, glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.

We need that number. When will we get it?

COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant statements as to that.

Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.

I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address -- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...

WYDEN: I'm...

COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe -- we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.

But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.

WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.

You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

... ... ...

[Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.

Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.

A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008, despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.

With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.

Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA. They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.

The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry anyone?

The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting! In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.

Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).

The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy, where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally "people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed" and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).

This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer.

I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.

The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies the concept of a national common culture.

What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain to invite that fate.

Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically, this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing him to pose as their champion.

The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !

Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism -- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings and the belief that only raw power has meaning.

Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore, including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.

James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at Kunstler.com .

Whine Merchant December 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

Wow – is there ever negative!
Celery , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:33 pm
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.

The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.

Merry Christmas!

Fran Macadam , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:55 pm
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
KD , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:02 am
Eat, Drink, and be Merry, you can charge it on your credit card!
Rock Stehdy , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:38 am
Hard words, but true. Kunstler is always worth reading for his common-sense wisdom.
Helmut , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:04 am
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
Liam , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:38 am
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."

Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.

Peter , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:34 am
I have some faith that the American people can recover from an excursion into unreality. I base it on my own survival to the end of this silly rant.
SteveM , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:08 am
Re: Whine Merchant, "Wow – is there ever negative!"

Can't argue with the facts

P.S. Merry Christmas.

Dave Wright , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:22 am
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.

I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.

Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.

Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."

When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.

NoahK , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:15 am
It's like somebody just got a bunch of right-wing talking points and mashed them together into one incohesive whole. This is just lazy.
Andrew Imlay , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:36 am
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia, or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights. Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry, anyone?

You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.

I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation, not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.

But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.

peter in boston , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:48 am
Love Kunstler -- and love reading him here -- but he needs a strong editor to get him to turn a formless harangue into clear essay.
Someone in the crowd , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:07 am
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.

The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.

As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative -- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.

My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.

Jon , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:10 am
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols engenders this tension, this angst.

Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.

The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call to arms.

Joe the Plutocrat , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:27 am
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."

And to whom do we hand the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately, under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?

Russia and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).

And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity, which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial, and even legal).

The scientist 880 , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:48 am
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."

Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.

Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's, much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\

It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!

Here is the direct quote;

"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant -- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners -- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)

I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100 years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obamas-howard-commencement-transcript-222931

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58cf1d9ae4b0ec9d29dcf283/amp

Adam , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:57 am
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market. In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government, just a different piece of legislation.
SteveM , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:29 pm
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.

E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.

The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)

P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.

One Guy , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
LouB , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included. You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.

Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.

tzx4 , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:57 pm
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.

If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.

Jeeves , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.

Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.

Wezz , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:44 pm
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.

Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances. Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising from birth selling illusion.

Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even capable of normal thought?

Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.

Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?

John Blade Wiederspan , says: December 21, 2017 at 4:26 pm
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three years to go.
EarlyBird , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Sheesh. Should I shoot myself now, or wait until I get home?
dvxprime , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.

The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.

Slooch , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:03 pm
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
jp , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:09 pm
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.

for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.

in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give a tired horse a rest.

c.meyer , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:30 pm
So what else is new. Too 'clever', overwritten, no new ideas. Can't anyone move beyond clichés?
Active investor , says: December 22, 2017 at 12:35 am
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic, at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.

However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:

But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies the concept of a national common culture.

The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.

Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a 'victim group.'

While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made in China).

JonF , says: December 22, 2017 at 9:52 am
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act

Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist). To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.

To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue, but you get the picture.

We have met the enemy and he was us.

kevin on the left , says: December 22, 2017 at 10:49 am
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."

Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.

[Dec 22, 2017] The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion, and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that.

Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT

@Art Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion, and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your countrymen didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Art Deco

We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq

The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.

And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war.

An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest aggressor.

I'm sure you're proud.

and both places had it coming.

A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.

Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet about the past three decades of foreign policy.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT
@reiner Tor The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show that), and yet our re-unification has been a huge success! I honestly can't think of good reason, why we can't go futher.
Mr. XYZ , December 18, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
: Would Russia have been interested in joining both the E.U. and NATO?
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Neither apply.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,

By various and sundry Sunni insurgents, who continue to distort and disfigure life in the provinces where they have a critical mass of the population. The Kurdish and Shia provinces are quiet.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Randal Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such arguments?

Depends on the degree to which my interlocutor lives in a bubble breathing in the air of his own mephitic resentments.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts

There were no imaginary pretexts. You need to get out more.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media.

There seems no evident reason to look for another explanation for the drops in pro-American sentiment. They seem eminently justified by the US's behaviour over the period 1990-date and perfectly unsurprising.

What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.

In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them. It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and in 2004.

It's understandable that following a particular instance of particularly bad US behaviour (such as Kosovo or Iraq) opinion of the US in US sphere states would dip dramatically (as it did, mostly) and then recover slowly to roughly its long term mean, because those crimes were not directed against the interests of US sphere states or elites. But they very much were targeted at Russia or its interests and disadvantageous to Russia and its global status. Russians had few excuses for failing to see that the US was an implacable and dangerous enemy from at least Kosovo onward, and yet they repeatedly chose to pretend to themselves that it wasn't.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Why are you assuming that the pendulum would swing back?
The Kremlin is still playing nice with Western "partners".
The alternative does not have to be more pro-American.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Art Deco As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?

C'mon, Iraq invasion was a disaster for the US whichever way you look at it. That's what happens when you start a war for the wrong reasons.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.

Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@Art Deco They do.
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Mr. XYZ

Would Russia have been interested in joining both the E.U. and NATO?

Integration into West is what Russians wanted.

An example

IF RUSSIA HAD THE CHANCE TO BECOME A FULL MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOW, WOULD YOU BE FOR OR AGAINST THIS? (N=800)

08/2009:
For: 53%
Against: 21%
Difficult to say: 27%

https://www.levada.ru/en/2016/06/10/russia-s-friends-and-enemies-2/

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
@Art Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or even Islamist in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq anymore the worst thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (bad, but hardly an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to deal with his regime in coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them in place for the foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was purely a war of choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather questionable, it's you who needs to get out more.
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Randal

What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.

Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.

It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and in 2004.

Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous conflicts.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT
@Art Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).

I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed that the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but it never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians, but that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time after the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are totally unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@German_reader

and that was clearly discernible at the time

Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies, especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO, especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists among them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts for their electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like NATO wasn't really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors (some of them). This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
@reiner Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"

Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard Belarus and Ukraine as part of "заграница" -- foreign countries. Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.

The last two sentences contradict the first.

Russians tend to be rather ignorant of Ukrainians, and you are no different.

DFH , December 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Mitleser Western Europe, with the best will in the world, doesn't need more Slav/Muslim immigrants. Europeans would have never agreed to it.
reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
@German_reader

Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified

Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though. They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.

Darin , December 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

This is for them to decide, not for you.

It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world.

Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture. In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show that)

Nonsense, Mr. Clueless-About-Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Polling

Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians, 55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be separated and given to Russia".

The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008 poll, post-Maidan).

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Totally agree, there should just have been a quick punitive expedition, trying to "fix" Afghanistan is pointless.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT
@inertial

That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.

Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:05 pm GMT
@DFH Oh, Western Europe does not mind Slav/Muslim immigrants.
In fact, they love them.
They would not have agreed for other reasons without admitting them in public.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together,

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:

James Mattis' 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world affairs.

which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.

In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama took office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US forces in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto present on the sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have an Iraqi collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran, but the long Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought hard, but were mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US occupiers, as indeed had much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both cases.

Military occupations are morally complicated like that.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@AP I was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:09 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?

Your memory is bad. The three Kurdish provinces never suffered much. Political violence in the Shia provinces was finally suppressed over a series of months in late 2007 and early 2008. It was also contained to a degree in the six provinces with Sunnis. And that is how matters remained for six years. ISIS was active in those provinces which have had public order problems consistently since 2003.

Iran has influence in Iraq. It is an 'Iranian' puppet only when unzdwellers require rhetorical flourishes.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Randal In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat

Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Mitleser Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case can be made both ways.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home' -- an actual Russian nation-state.

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.

Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.

Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
@German_reader That's just dumb.

No, it's just an argument you're not used to having to answer.

The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the time.

It was nothing of the kind. That was on the list of concerns Bush had. Bush's trilemmas don't go away just because Eurotrash strike poses and have impoverished imaginations.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@reiner Tor I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the supposed genocide

The concern at the time was that Serbia was beginning an ethnic cleansing operation contra the Albania population, but carry on.

inertial , December 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@Darin This is for them to decide, not for you.

Yes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:21 pm GMT
@AP These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.

The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to modify our approach.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
@German_reader US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences.

It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@inertial Yes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.

They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from now.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media? These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public opinion.

They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.

Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of victory and defeat on your part.

The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi military and the occupation of the country.

However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of US power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of the war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of American national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US regime policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant, and the overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with vigorous sunni jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US as most ME states are.

So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial military victory.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Randal

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis

I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that hating Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an accident that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's favourite.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.

Definitely no
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Art Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Randal

Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.

I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate the majority permanently.

I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.

Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Integration into West is what Russians wanted.
An example
08/2009:

Since then, everything has changed

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Art Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was merely a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the region according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war increased Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though. They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.

In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter was by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand bin Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no clue what he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush declined that offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some foreign ass in order to appease American shame.

The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.

But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have had the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world, pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.

The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West.

There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to retain control.

What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT
@AP

In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" -- these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they already fled from Donbass).

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
@Randal

In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.

I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts. My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views, and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.

An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the making of Swedish media. The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
@German_reader

US nationalists like you

He is not US "nationalist". Agree with the rest of your post.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 18, 2017 at 9:01 pm GMT

while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere

LOL!!

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Swedish Family ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?

It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT
@Swedish Family Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?

Why do people give up 'control' of anything? Because they cannot be bothered anymore.

utu , December 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
@inertial Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.

Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT
@German_reader Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction

No, that's what you noticed in an amongst everything else being discussed by officials and in the papers at the time.

which didn't exist in 2003.

It's a reasonable inference the stockpiles were largely destroyed. To what extent they were able to ship stockpiles to co-operating third parties is not altogether certain. You know the stockpiles were largely destroyed because . we were occupying the country .

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:11 pm GMT
@German_reader , amounts to an admission that this was merely a pretext a

It amounts to no such thing. That you have three reasons for doing something does not render one of them a 'real' reason and the others artificial.

Sean , December 18, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is another Dunkirk with the UK realising it cannot compete with Germany on the continent). Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are relegated to Germany's sidekick.

China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT
@German_reader given that the Iraq war increased Iran's power and status).

Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because we had troops in Iraq?

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT
@Art Deco What stockpiles are you talking about?
Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@German_reader

Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.

It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of the charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should have resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did not want to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a democracy in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@melanf

American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.

Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/re-visiting-russian-counter-propaganda-methods/

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Art Deco Well, they can now send troops to Syria on land.
Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
@German_reader Calling me "Eurotrash"

I didn't have you in particular in mind.

oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.

No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because we had troops in Iraq?

Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance directly to Khamenei.

Is that "victory" for you?

An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

Is that "victory" for you?

And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing again.

Is that "victory" for you?

Mitleser , December 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT
@reiner Tor And they can recruit more easily in post-Saddam Iraq.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless answer.

So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their preference?

So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of Russia?

Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict your idealistic views?

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT
@Sean Brexit is another Dunkirk with the UK realising it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).

No, it's an effort by the British public to reclaim for elected officials discretion which had been transferred to unaccountable microbes in Brussels.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service if they study at university or have good jobs.)

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
@Randal Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance directly to Khamenei.

You can get away with more by using the prefix 'there has even been speculation'/

An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.

They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.

And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing again.

Their western neighbor never invaded them 'with U.S. backing'. During the latter half of the Iraq war, Iraq restored diplomatic relations with the United States and received some agricultural credits and other odds and ends.

Iran will be under threat from their western neighbor should they have something that neighbor wishes to forcibly seize.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke

Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business.

No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do so, and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still largely applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).

The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the time, instead.

More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice, and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught as such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up trying to rationalise it) for generations to come.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT
@Sean Received wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.

https://www.amazon.com/MITI-Japanese-Miracle-Industrial-1925-1975/dp/0804712069

Whatever.

melanf , December 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian public and for what purpose?

It is known -- the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
@Art Deco

They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.

Only by air.

For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify, track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes land in Syrian airports every day.

However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/12/httpssouthfrontorgfirst-iranian-military-convoy-enters-syria-through-land-route-from-iraq-reports.html

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
@Art Deco US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you? Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development? Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.

Well you have to wonder if he was just trolling the Americans, or if he was really naïve enough to expect a serious response.

Sean , December 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT
@Art Deco Lord Weinstock said Britain could be de-industrialised in the EU, and how right he was.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?

It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.

Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend itself?

On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass

Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010 got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate. In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about 10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50 between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?

A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"

Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.

Here is how Azov started:

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim Troyan:

Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.

these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,

On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk), forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime while under international sanctions.

Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and Donbas.

Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers after their cakewalk.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT
@Swedish Family Only by air.

How often has Israel shot down Iranian aircraft?

However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new ground route,

Not buying.

neutral , December 18, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT
@AP

Does he look like an intellectual to you?

The question reminds me of this:

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT
@Sean The share of value-added in industry as a share of global product has been declining for over 50 years. In the EU, industry accounts for 24.5% of value added. In Britain, the figure is 20.2%. Not seeing why that animates you.
AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.

Correct. The thinking often was -- "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas -- ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained there, they'd have to fight at home.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT
US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast

No, they aren't. The political class has been anxious about Iran because it's sinking a lot of resources into building weapons of mass destruction, because key actors therein adhere to apocalyptic conceptions, and because it's a weirdly (and gratuitously) hostile country.

since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you? Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development? Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?

You keep alluding to things that cannot be quantified or even readily verified. Iran's taken advantage of disordered situations in the past (in Lebanon), so it's not surprising they do so in Syria. The disordered situation there is a function of the breakdown of government in Syria, not of the Iraq war. Whether any influence Iran has in Iraq turns out to be abiding remains to be seen. The anxiety about Iraq has concerned it's inclination to subvert friendly governments and drop atomic weaponry on Israel. Not sure how their subrosa dealings with the Iraqi government further the latter (or even the former).

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@AP LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services know all of them by name.

To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived insurgency.

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT
@Art Deco

No, they aren't.

The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced this:

https://nypost.com/2015/02/01/the-iranian-dream-of-a-reborn-persian-empire/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/15/fmr-nato-supreme-allied-commander-stavridis-iran-will-be-imperial-power-due-to-iran-deals-golden-shower-of-money/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-and-the-imperialism-hypocrisy/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/30/what-to-do-about-an-imperial-iran-middle-east-persia-regional-dominance/

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/may-clifford-d-the-new-persian-empire/ (btw, the Foundation for defense of democracies agrees with me that the removal of Saddam's regime was to Iran's benefit).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/henry-kissinger-isis-iranian-radical-empire-middle-east-a7881541.html

Obviously I don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though imo US policy in this regard has been rather counter-productive recently.
Regarding the Iraq war, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion, if you want to continue regarding it as a great idea, I won't argue with you.

Talha , December 18, 2017 at 10:56 pm GMT
I remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.

Peace.

AP , December 18, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.

And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are not modern western Euros.

And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.

Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.

The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country

Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.

OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by block.

trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them

In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30% voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.

Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism and optimism in Russia!

It will be a short lived insurgency.

And Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT
@German_reader The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media

"Imperial" or "Imperialist" is a term of art among IR specialists referring to active revisionist powers in a given state system.

The people you are linking to are a mixed bunch. One's a lapsed reporter. Two are opinion journalists with background (one in the military and one in the intelligence services, or so he says), one has been out of office for 40 years (and, IMO, is engaging in the academic's exercise of attention-seeking through counter-factual utterance; there's little downside to that), and one actually is someone who has been a policy-maker in the last generation (and he's offering a critique of the Iran deal, which was not a Bush administration initiative).

Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
@Randal

This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the time, instead.

Who gives a damn what they think? These are the same countries that plunged the world into two World Wars that killed 100m people between them. Their blinkered and self-serving stupidity is a model for what not to do.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
@Talha I remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.

I remember Gen. Zia on the front page of The New York Times ridiculing Mr. Carter in plain terms (the $400 million aid offer was 'peanuts').

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:10 pm GMT
@Randal The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq,

The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq. As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests (and no, I don't stipulate that you've characterized their opinion correctly either).

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Sounds like fun.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
@German_reader

And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

The common factor amongst you, reiner and myself here is that none of us come from a dogmatically anti-American background or personal world-view, nor from a dogmatically pacifist one.

As I've probably noted here previously, I grew up very pro-American and very pro-NATO in the late Cold War, and as a strong supporter of Thatcher and Reagan. I saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a glorious triumph and a vindication of all the endless arguments against anti-American lefties and CND numpties. I also strongly supported the Falklands War (the last genuinely justified and intelligent war fought by my country, imo) and also the war against Iraq in 1990/1, though I'm a little less certain on that one nowadays. I'm significantly older than you both, it seems, however, and it was watching US foreign policy in the 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo war, that convinced me that the US is now the problem and not the solution.

When the facts changed, I changed my opinion.

So I was a war or two ahead of you, chronologically, because I'm older, but we've travelled pretty much the same road. Our views on America have been created by US foreign policy choices.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT
@AP Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight. Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't look like they have a lot of fight in them:

They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum, but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT
@Donnyess I haven't heard either Russia, or the Right in the USA, alleging that African-"Americans" are taking white Americans' jobs.

Generally, I don't know anyone in the USA whose complaint about African-"Americans" is that they are working.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke

Who gives a damn what they think?

Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo chamber.

US foreign policy is pretty much a byword for incompetence even amongst its own allies, at least when they are talking off the record.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Art Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak & correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.

Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of) the EU.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 11:24 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter It shocks me, the amount of supposedly 'smart', 'educated' people in the US, who seriously think "free press" is a thing.
Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT
@Art Deco

The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.

That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.

The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is a great idea.

As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests

Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it displays in all the wars it has ever fought.

You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.

Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT
@Randal

Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo chamber.

"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing Tikritis or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's rule. The big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced both Shiites and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of Uncle Sam. They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable one, given Iraq's strategic location.

Talha , December 18, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT
@Art Deco Sure, but the ordinary folks liked him -- he seemed like a humble man with faith from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate to someone like that.

I was just a wee lad at the time, so I'm only conveying what my dad told me.

Peace.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT
@Art Deco Well, there is some reason to think that membership in the EU will become a steadily less attractive prospect.

The substantial demographic changes sweeping northern and western Europe now will become far larger as (1) new "migration" occurs from Africa and the Middle East and Pakistan into Europe; (2) "family reunification" chain migration goes on endlessly from the same places into Europe; and (3) Muslims continue to dramatically outbreed non-Muslims in Europe.

(Even if Muslims in Europe drop their total fertility rate to replacement, around 2.1 I think, the non-Muslim Europeans have TFRs like 1.4 and 1.5 and 1.6, the very definition of dying peoples.)

And that doesn't even account for the flight of non-Muslims out of Europe as it becomes ever more violent, frightening, chaotic, and impoverished. That flight could become a massive phenomenon. (We have acquaintances in Germany and Austria already mulling over the idea, with great sadness and anger in their hearts.)

On current trends, what reason is there to think that "Germany" and "France" and "England" and "Sweden" won't in fact be heavily Islamic / African (and in the case of Germany, Turkish) hellholes in the lifetime of many of us here?

Granted, Russia has too many Muslims itself, and I don't know enough to predict whether they will be willing and able to remove the excessive number of Central Asian Muslims (guestworkers or otherwise) from their territory. But Russia is not giving itself away to Muslims at a breakneck pace like the terminally naïve Germans, French, English, and Swedes are doing with their own countries.

The point is, Belarus and Ukraine won't be faced with a choice between Russia and the "Europe" that we still envision from the recent past.

Belarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they lack the force to maintain, union or close formal affiliation with Russia, or a "Europe" where white Europeans are outnumbered, terrified, massively taxed to pay for their younger and more confident Islamic / African overlords, and ultimately subjugated and killed / inter-bred into nonexistence.

The Europe that you are positing as an alternative to Russia, already doesn't quite exist anymore. Soon it won't exist at all in any recognizable or desirable form. Russia merely needs to be a better alternative than THAT.

Art Deco , December 18, 2017 at 11:54 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter Fine. The EU is poorly constructed and a threat to self-government.

Mr. Felix fancies White Russia is Russia's property. There's a constituency in White Russia for re-incorporation into Russia, but it amounts to about 1/4 of the population and is half the proportion it was 20 years ago. Kinda think it really shouldn't be Mr. Felix's call, but he doesn't see it that way.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT
@German_reader Agree with much of what you say. With a big exception": most Europeans ARE pussies who try to appease the Islamic and African aggressors and freeloaders they are importing into their lands at a furious pace. Besonders die Deutschen.

At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third World takeover of our country. Albeit probably without success.

Summary: we're probably screwed, you're almost certainly screwed worse and faster.

Keep patting yourself on the back. But grow that beard now and bend over -- and beat the rush.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Belarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they lack the force to maintain,

Just to point out that occasions where a state has had its sovereignty extinguished since 1945 are as follows: East Germany (1990, voluntary), South Yemen (1990, voluntary, but triggering an insurrection), Kuwait (1990, temporary), South VietNam (1975/76, conquered). Not real common. N.B. the Axis rampage in Europe and Asia during the War: the only thing that stuck was Soviet Russia's seizure of the Baltic states.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Why don't you present us a photo of yourself, so that we can see what a true Russian warrior looks like?

I think I've found one of you?

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
@RadicalCenter

At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third World takeover of our country.

30 years too late, though I'll readily admit that I was somewhat impressed how normal US citizens managed to kill off amnesty proposals during Bush's 2nd administration by lobbying their congressmen etc. Quite the contrast with what's going on in my own country where people just meekly submit to everything.
And I've never denied that many Europeans are quite decadent they should certainly spend more for their own defense, maybe even bring back conscription.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
@Johann Ricke

What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury

No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were hugely counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and broken former enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined with a strong ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.

Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers. If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a defeat.

But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would have been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama was over Syria.

However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone

Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game of alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war) and regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying something Americans don't like to hear).

They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in due course with Iranian backing.

In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than pretending to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of overthrowing the Syria government, American-style.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT
@German_reader I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type, and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments being level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of other topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility for the periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.

To which I added:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming form a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger tips. And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is; reality is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories and speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His quality and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data and he hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in newspapers. Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have been its supreme director.

His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to Art Deco handle this Monday.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:

US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except, bizarrely, it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly was one of the first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:

The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.

"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."

The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:

The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic, after all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
@utu Art Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I suppose his views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US right-wingers (a serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT
@German_reader Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons

The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had them. If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the ostensive cause for the invasion.

I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria. The WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including Brits or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@German_reader it makes little sense to attack him personally

Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so I must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a hopeless case.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
@utu

The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.

Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s, with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:48 am GMT
@utu With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an "organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his views aren't unusual.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 3:16 am GMT
@German_reader Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm angry at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying himself with drugs or whatever.
John Gruskos , December 19, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT
@German_reader The commenter using the name "Art Deco" is NOT an American nationalist.

He is neocon trash.

Cato , December 19, 2017 at 3:43 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:53 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.

As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv. Maidan itself was a cross-section -- of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students, nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the western half of the country.

Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:

Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:

Azov people in their native Kharkiv:

Kharkiv kids:

Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.

Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is being invaded.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:10 am GMT
@AP Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.

To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being exclusively liberal student-types.

Anon , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Said a dude who invested in an Asian woman.
utu , December 19, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
@German_reader Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished 100%.

jimbojones , December 19, 2017 at 8:01 am GMT
A few points:
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles -- ever since the Revolution. Russia has been an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit -- in EVERY major American conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles -- they like Hollywood movies, American music, American idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government. Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed 2004 and 2014 coups. Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
LondonBob , December 19, 2017 at 8:18 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov Art Deco is a Zionist, just checkout his reaction when you point out Israel assassinated JFK.
LondonBob , December 19, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT
@utu Israel wanted Iraq destroyed, it was.
Anatoly Karlin , Website December 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it covered different regions and used the same methodology.

Takeaway:

1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.

2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this matter.

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far more difficult -- and probably best left for sometime in the future.

5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's vacillations in 2014.

Anon , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT
@LondonBob Check out any American's reaction when some random Londoner tells him Israel assassinated JFK.
for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 2:15 pm GMT
@German_reader they [Germans] should certainly spend more for their own defense, maybe even bring back conscription .

With all due respect, and making allowance for your relative youth, that is simply rubbish. Defense against whom? Russia? Iran? As your posts make it eminently clear, the real enemy of Germany is within, not without.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
@jimbojones

The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government

Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.

To be clear -- Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.

There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity that is not Russian.

A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism. Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly "Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.

You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.

But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian, 20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21% Russian).

The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).

'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in comtemporary Ukraine, where you will go to prison for displaying Russian flag -- who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?

In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine -- I'm fairly certain of it.

Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society. Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to Russian takeover by self-deporting -- they have the money and resources to do it.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.

Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't make it true.

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

The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]

The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were not mostly rich, fey hipsters.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.

So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most easily manipulated by Russian propoganda -- a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we can see the results of that fiasco to this day.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
@jimbojones

Russia and the US are natural allies.

While geopolitically and historically it is true:

a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first derivative of incompetence) to understand that -- this is largely the problem with most "Western" elites.

b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global" appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe military-political limitations.

c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".

d) Too late

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
@AP I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as Ukraine's "defender" here:

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft. It's just the way it is.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT
@jimbojones

American music

One substantial correction: generation which now is in power and defines most of Russia's dynamics, age group of 40s-50s, was largely influenced by British music, not American one, despite its definite presence in cultural menu in 1960 through 1980s. British music was on the order of magnitude more popular and influential in USSR. The love for American music was rather conditional and very selective. Of course, jazz was and is huge among educated and cultured, but in terms of pop/rock if one discounts immensely popular Eagles (for obvious reason), Donna Summer or something on the order of magnitude of Chicago, British pop-music was a different universe altogether. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple or even British Glam were immense in 1970s, not to mention NWBHM in 1980s. One would have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia than music of Michael Jackson.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@AP The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major challenge.
Gerard2 , December 19, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT
@AP [MORE]
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT
@Anon Yes, a highly intelligent, hardworking, conservative, Christian Asian woman who loves and appreciates America, is the same as a Muslim African, Arab or Paki whose religion tells him to subjugate or kill us. No drastic difference in genetics or the impact on our culture, language, economy, and security there.

Moreover, allowing our native-born white citizens to choose spouses from elsewhere is the same as admitting tens of millions of people with little to no screening whatsoever (the latter being admitted in the interest of those who actively seek the most dimwitted, violent, intimidating, slothful, hateful, and incompatible people psosible in order to endanger, impoverish, and dumb down out people and set the stage for us to "need" a police state to manage the chaos and crime they bring).

Your logic is impeccable, I'll admit.

How long have you been married, by the way? And how many children are you raising? I just ask because I am sure we can compare notes and I can benefit from your manly experience and expertise.

Get a consistent handle to use on this site. Then tell us personal details as many of us have done. Then we can have a further friendly chat, big anonymous man who comments on other men's wives.

reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g. the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures (the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

One would have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia than music of Michael Jackson.

What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous 1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I think Metallica in its prime and Pantera right before they became really big (and heavy).

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
@LondonBob Art Deco is a Zionist, just checkout his reaction when you point out Israel assassinated JFK.

My reaction is that you need to take your risperidal, bathe, and quit pestering people for bits of cash. And make your clinic appointments. They're sick of seeing you at the ED.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT
@LondonBob Israel wanted Iraq destroyed, it was.

The actually existing Israeli officialdom advised the Bush administration to give priority to containing Iran.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT
@reiner Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because they are considered "heroes" or something.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis

I never denied the presence of them.

This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern Ukraine.

If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.

Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.

These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.

As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.

A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges draft

Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is in Russia.

reiner Tor , December 19, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their pastime.

They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.

Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder, kidnapping and racketeering.

But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT
@Talha he seemed like a humble man with faith from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate to someone like that.

Carter was an agribusinessman whose personal net worth (not counting his mother's holdings and siblings' holdings) was in seven digits in 1976. (His dipso brother managed the family business -- passably well -- from 1963 until 198?). John Osborne interviewed 1st, 2d, and 3d degree relations of Carter during the campaign and discovered the family was in satisfactory condition financially even during the Depression. Carter also spent the 2d World War -- the whole thing -- at the Naval Academy.

There's much to be said for Carter, but there's no doubt one of his shortcomings is vanity. Harry Truman is the closest thing to a humble man in the White House in the years since Pakistan was constituted. If you're looking for 'humble beginnings', the best examples are Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Anon , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT
@Art Deco Not relevant re humble beginnings but re Pakistan: you've probably heard the famous anecdote about Kennedy and Bhutto:

K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and perhaps even political power

Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas, they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class, security guards, etc.

Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student activists and businessmen.

And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,

They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to make the effort worthwhile.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Anon Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.

My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT
@AP

That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?

This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did.

Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Gerard2 oligarchs, not nationalism are the driving force behind the "Ukrainian" mass crimes against humanity committing --
Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 4:34 pm GMT
@utu Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.

Actually, it's completely random and bizarre, but random and bizarre appeals to a certain sort of head case. Oliver Stone's thesis (that the military-industrial complex took down the President by subcontracting the job to a bunch of French Quarter homosexuals) is comparatively lucid.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.

About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty of local support for native insurgents.

Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk reconcile themselves with Kiev?

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.

Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is only 25% Russian.

With Donbas -- there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the Donbas and Aidar battalions.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
@AP It was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until Maidanists overthrew his friend

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable. And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did

The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia that are Kharkivites.

The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.

Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.

You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas. But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support (versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.

AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated by Azov militia.

This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT
@AP

The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?

The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended. It's wide open!

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT
@AP Honestly, I doubt that this kind of stuff has much impact on Putin's decisionmaking.
Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing more than a blackshirted illusionist.*

*фантазёр

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
@for-the-record German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists. We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be foolish to have no credible deterrence.
AP , December 19, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?"

They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol

While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely undefended.

Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around Donbas.

Here is a map of various positions in 2017:

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.

It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and Odessa.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT
@AP

Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?

I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some 50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT
@AP So your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.

The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Felix Keverich , December 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT
@AP

Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).

How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb while they are sleeping?

Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.

for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT
@German_reader And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be foolish to have no credible deterrence.

What "credible deterrence" are you proposing for Germany? As has been clearly demonstrated, the only credible deterrence against a determined foe (of which Germany has none, at least externally) is nuclear. Is this what you are suggesting?

Germany has willingly supported the US (presumably in continuing gratitude for US support during the Cold War), it hasn't been "blackmailed" into this. Austria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany? There is no need whatsoever for Germany to build up its military strength; rather, what Germany (sorely) lacks is the desire (and guts) to act independently of the US.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is comforting for them.

Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and Japan.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous 1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I think Metallica in its prime and Pantera right before they became really big (and heavy).

Metallica primarily and AC/DC. Pantera were more of a bonus. Nowhere near massive popularity of AC/DC and Metallica, who were main attraction. Earlier, in 1988, so called Moscow Peace Festival also saw a collection of heavy and glam metal luminaries such as Motley Crue, Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Scorpions, of course, etc. But, of course, Ozzy was met with a thunder by Luzhniki stadium. The only rock royalty who was allowed to give a first ever concert on Red Square was Sir Paul, with Putin being personally present. Speaks volumes. British rock was always dominant in USSR. In the end, every Soviet boy who was starting to play guitar had to know three chords of the House of the Rising Sun. Russians are also very progressive rock oriented and in 1970s Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant etc. were huge. Soviet underground national anthem was Uriah Heep's masterpiece of July Morning. I believe Bulgaria still has July Morning gatherings every year. All of it was British influence. My generation also grew up with British Glam which for us was a pop-music of the day -- from Sweet to Slade, to T.Rex. And then there was: QUEEN.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@for-the-record Austria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany?

Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT
@for-the-record

Germany has willingly supported the US

Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could eventually become possible or necessary.

Mr. Hack , December 19, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=ukraine

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Art Deco "Clouseau He killed two customers, a Cossack, and a WAITER!!"
Sean , December 19, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
@Art Deco A lot of what used to be manufacturing, such as engineering design, is now put under the category of services. Manufacturing companies want to be listed as engaged in services because manufacturing is perceived as not profitable. Britain is alone among comparable countries in having lost significant amounts of productive capacity.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Art Deco You have exquisite taste in movies, sir. Something we can agree on.
Johann Ricke , December 19, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT
@Anon

K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."

The thing about many of these corrupt, worthless and incompetent Third World leaders is they're not lacking in self-esteem. Just ask Karzai. Or Maliki.

Sean , December 19, 2017 at 7:13 pm GMT
@Art Deco The potential power of China is an order of magnitude greater than Japan. After WW2 Japan, and to a lesser extent Germany, were too small to be a threat. Don't you believe all that Robert Kagan 'the US solved the problems that caused WW1 and 2′ stuff. China is a real hegemon in the making and they will take a run at it, unless they are contained by military pressure on their borders.

Modern Japan is more like Singapore than China. China has economies of scale, they have a single integrated factory complex making laptops with has more workers than the British army. China will have a huge home market, like America. So by the time it dawns on America that China's growing power must be checked, economic measures will be ineffective.

for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Art Deco Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?

That's about right, yes. Except I didn't say that Germany should have no military capability, only that there is no sense in increasing current military expenditure. A military capability can be useful for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and hurricanes.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 19, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Anon t. le 56% face.

America's national IQ will be below 90 in a few decades so I really doubt that.

inertial , December 19, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Art Deco They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from now.

Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic, mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff: European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.

Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.

The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather quickly.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT
@Sean Manufacturing companies want to be listed as engaged in services because manufacturing is perceived as not profitable.

Inventive parry. Not buying.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT
@Sean Modern Japan is more like Singapore than China.

There are 120 million people living in Japan, settlements of every size, and agricultural land sufficient for Japan to supply demand for rice from domestic production. So, no.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT
@for-the-record That's about right, yes.

You said that, not me.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative. Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian troops moved further westward.

(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among other things.

(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too, would be jeopardized by more military action.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT
@inertial 1. You fancy they're bamboozled and you're not. Cute.

2. You also fancy your interlocutors are economic illiterates and that they'll buy into the notion that the solution to the Ukraine's economic problems is to be forcibly incorporated into Russia. Such a change in political boundaries addresses no economic problems.

Art Deco , December 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Swedish Family (1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.

You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.

There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. T

Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@for-the-record That is terribly naïve.

I've been all over the comment boards calling for my country (the USA) to take a less belligerent, more honest, friendlier approach to Russia, and I've largely taken the side of Russia in the Ukraine and Syria controversies.

I also don't think Russia has any current designs on the territory of its western neighbors, or the desire for the dire consequences that would likely follow as the US and others react to such a move.

But that doesn't mean that it's prudent for Germany (or any other smaller, less populous country near Russia) to simply trust that Russia will never use military force against them in the future.

Nor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.

Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the UK. None of them should purport to predict well into the future that Russia, China, and others (Turkey) will never be both willing and able to invade them. Nor should Germany et al. assume that the USA will always be in a position to jump in to defend Europeans in the absence of serious European militaries.

In fact, the western Europeans' glaring military weakness (and their obvious loss of the will to defend their people, their land, and their way of life) could serve to encourage physical aggression by, e.g., Turkey or Russia. Betting that you need a military merely "for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and hurricanes" is a potentially fatal bet, with irreversible consequences.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
@for-the-record Yes, Germany would be wise to acquire at least a small nuclear deterrent, just as France and the UK and Israel have.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke So the costs of the US invasion/occupation/"reconstruction" of Iraq were (allegedly) less than the costs of the equally unnecessary and non-defensive US wars in Korea and Vietnam? Heck of an argument.

How about this: we should have refrained from all three wars.

We should be using our resources to secure our own borders, to police the international waters and vital shipping lanes / chokepoints (fighting pirates and terrorists as necessary to those ends), and to actually defend our land and our people and deter aggression. That's it.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the UK.

Grossly inadequate for what purpose?

What matters about military strength is its relation to neighbours' and potential enemies' strengths. Germany's military spending currently ranks number nine in the world (using the SIPRI figures per Wikipedia for simplicity ), which when you consider they are located in the middle of one of the safest continents (militarily speaking) in the world, surrounded by allies with whom military conflict is currently pretty much inconceivable, is quite impressive. Above them are only its European allies UK and France, the grossly bloated US and Saudi Arabian budgets, Russia and China, and Japan and India. Apart from South Korea who come next, Germany spends half as much again as the next on the list (Italy).

Germany's military shortcomings can in no plausible degree be attributed to not spending enough, unless you think Germany should be remilitarising for a potential war with Russia. Basically, Germany's military is toothless mostly because nobody in Germany really thinks it matters, nobody expects to be involved in a war, and such spending as it has is mostly purposed to suit a Germany integrated into NATO and the EU rather than an independent state. If there's a problem it's not down to insufficient spending but to how the money is currently spent.

Like you I'm a general believer in having a strong military, and in "si vis pacem, para bellum". But it's hard to see how Germany could really benefit from increased military spending. If they were to feel genuinely threatened, nuclear weapons would make much more sense (along with a radical reorganisation of the current spending and conventional military establishment).

There's a lot of American nonsense talked about European states underspending on their military, but the reality is that the US grossly overspends to serve its own global interventionist purposes. There's no reason why European states should spend to serve those purposes, which is what in reality increased European spending in the current context would be used for.

What we might see in some potential circumstances is increased German (and European in general) military spending in order to give them the confidence to break away from NATO and US control, and build the long trailed "European Defence Force". That looks a lot more likely after Brexit and in the context of the Trump presidency than it did a few years ago, but it's still something of a distant possibility. In that case, though, the increases would be mainly for morale building and transitional spending purposes, given that the combined EU military budget is already second in the world, behind only the ludicrous US.

Talha , December 19, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT
@Art Deco Hey Art Deco (cool name by the way -- I love that style of architecture -- probably one of the only modern styles I like),

Well, all I can say is he played it smooth enough to fool a heck of a lot of Pakistanis (not saying that's all that difficult).

Peace.

Swedish Family , December 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT
@Art Deco

You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.

No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.

And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation. Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?

Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT
@Art Deco We're in agreement on all of that, AD.

But the EU isn't merely a threat to self-government anymore. It is now actively and intentionally importing people who kill, rape, mug, beat, grope, harass, stalk, and generally disrespect and intimidate "their own" European people. The EU is an active threat to the lives and physical safety of European people. No people with the barest common sense and will to live will stay in the EU as these recent horrific events continue to unfold.

for-the-record , December 19, 2017 at 10:06 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter Nor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.

This is really a case of misplaced priorities.

Germany is in the process of losing its national identity built up over 2,000 years or so, and it has nothing to do with the Chinese (or the Russians either, for that matter). And China certainly doesn't need its military to successfully export its "massive, overcrowded, ambitious population" overseas (cf. Western Canada, Australia).

Focusing on the (non-existent, in my opinion) need for Germany to increase its current (already high) level of military expenditures will do nothing to preserve Germany as a European nation.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT
@for-the-record Take a look at my other comments. You'll see that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the moral sickness, cowardice, misplaced guilty, and terminal naivete of the Germans leading them to surrender their land, their property, their way of life, and their very lives to the Muslim and African savages they are importing.

As a recent book by a German politician put it, "Deutschland schafft sich ab", or "Germany does away with itself."

But what has that to do with Germany also refusing to maintain a serious military defense force to deter potential threats from state actors such as Russia, Turkey, and China? Any nation worth its salt must both secure / guard its orders AND keep a military ready to fight external forces. Germany can and should do both, and right now it's doing neither.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 11:41 pm GMT
@for-the-record As for China in particular: of course China is glad to export millions of its people to settle and become citizens in the USA, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the former "West."

They are thereby en route to acquiring real social influence, and ultimately some direct political power, in those places (especially Australia and the provinces of "British" Columbia and Alberta, owing to the very small white populations of those places compared to the immigration onslaught).

I lived part-time in Richmond and Vancouver, BC, and know just how quickly that region is becoming an alien culture -- Chinese more than anything, but also Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh. (Look up the career of crooked "Canadian" former pol and now radio-host Kash Heed, among many other examples.) I would expect that Mandarin will eventually become a co-equal official language of government (and public schools) in BC, with no effective opposition by those ever-"tolerant" Canadians ("We're not like those racist Americans, you know!").

But the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its population. Actually outright TAKING swathes of Europe or, say, Africa, would help them a lot more than immigration. When the time is right -- say, after the US dollar loses its world reserve status and/or the US is beset by widespread racial conflict and riots -- China may well make its move in that regard. I hope not, and I don't think it will be very soon, but a wise country needs a strong military in the face of China and other threats.

RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter Talha, you agreed with me again? I must be slipping

Merry Christmas, buddy -

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT
@Felix Keverich Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).

Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession -- with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable.

As I was already writing in 2016 :

Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%. This translates to an effective quadrupling in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic collapse. Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

* There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:23 am GMT
@Art Deco How so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population) worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.

And Japan could have kept China subjugated indefinitely without the American intervention.

Not of course to otherwise entertain your completely false and misleading comparison.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready.

250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.

Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.

Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2 billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.

By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go into the Republic military.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.

80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian world, and the world at large.

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians -- no Russian went there to get rich.

That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia, which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?

AP , December 20, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than reported elsewhere.

Mobilization percentages by region:

"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."

Summary:

2014:

The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas -- they were nothing more than a fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian army

2017:

The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state to adapt the army's structure -- for the first time since its creation -- to real operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia, but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine now has the best army it has ever had in its history.

* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent, something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of 2014.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
@Art Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which I disagree with you).

I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who deserves no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial drain but having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have been worth it (I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of being groomed for such a role).

Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money, and loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle East conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is, that it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR would have been sunk.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:21 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians -- no Russian went there to get rich.

Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked, sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are more important than their % indicates.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:00 am GMT
@Art Deco [MORE]
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT
@AP [MORE]
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT
@AP [MORE]
Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT
@Gerard2 ..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military

That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens,Poles and other mercenaries.

Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of everyone else .but Ukrainians

Talha , December 20, 2017 at 4:05 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Hey man -- when you're right, you're right -- that one was spot on.

If we can end the nonsense wars, we can at least solve a good chunk of the immigration crisis. It's all related.

Hope your family has a safe holiday and a good New Years.

Peace.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 5:02 am GMT
@Gerard2 [MORE]
melanf , December 20, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
Amazing -- almost any discussion in this section turns to хохлосрач (ukrohitstorm)
neutral , December 20, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT
@melanf What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not important. It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa they were not new, but you know what I mean).
ussr andy , December 20, 2017 at 9:52 am GMT
@Swedish Family cool screen name ; )
melanf , December 20, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
@Swedish Family

Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine

much more than half

Donbass rebels: soldiers of the detachment of "Sparta". Data published by Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine:

https://imgur.com/a/Gh8zx

ussr andy , December 20, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT
@neutral yup, it's positively quaint , doubly so in light of the most-important-graph.gif.
TT , December 20, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have brainwashed all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and milk, people of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of DemoNcracy made in USA.
Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT
@melanf I think it's mostly Gerard2. Mr. Hack is fairly hostile but coldly civil. Don't think this compares to Runet xoxlosraches at all (of course I try to cut any such developments in the bud).
TT , December 20, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup.

So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people.

What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.

Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know the best and able to decde themselves.

Randal , December 20, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
@Swedish Family

Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons:

Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.

In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.

The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin If presenting a Ukrainophile point of view at this website is considered to be 'pretty hostile' then so be it. I cannot countenance the slimy way that Gerard2 reponds to AP's comments. He was getting way out of line with his name calling and needed to be put in his place.
Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter But the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its population.

As we speak, about 8.5% of the value-added in China's economy is attributable to agriculture and about 27% of the workforce is employed in agriculture. Industry and services are not land-intensive activities.

About 1/2 of China's land area consists of arid or alpine climates suitable for only light settlement. As for the rest, China's entire non-agricultural population could be settled at American suburban densities on about 23% of the whole.

You don't need 'natural resources' on site to 'sustain your population'. Imports of oil and minerals will do. As for foodstuffs, China's been a net importer since 2004. However, its food-trade deficit is currently about $35 bn, a single-digit fraction of China's total food consumption.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

There's a report that says actual Ukrainian military spending remained rather more modest at 2.5% of GDP ( https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_66_ang_best_army_ukraine_net.pdf ); even so, that still translates to huge improvements over 2014.

You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion.

Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively impoving capabilities of the army.

The bottomline is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.

AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.

Anatoly Karlin , Website December 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more, since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.

By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%. Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.

What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT
@Gerard2 We'd all benefit if you'd sober up and add brevity and humor to your emotional outbursts and trash talk. No need for much verbiage in the absence of substantive information.
Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT
@AP The American occupation of Japan lasted 7 years, not 'several decades'. Japan was quite capable of rapid and autonomous economic development without the assistance of the United States or any other power. Neither was the United States government the author of Japanese parliamentary institutions, which antedate the war. There were certain social reforms enacted during the MacArthur regency (I think having to do with the agricultural sector). The emperor's power was further reduced in the 1946 constitution. A portion of the flag-rank military were put in front of firing squads. That's about it.

Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk. You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq. If you want to understand this, you have to look to how Arab societies themselves are ordered (in contrast to interwar or post-war German society).

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT
@TT That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US

There are no such places.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@AP

It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary.

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov. That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.

Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine. Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT

"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is unnecessaary."

It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL

Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine is in total collapse, back to the 90s.

We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.

If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas so this could be more complicated.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin How so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population) worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.

You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to 1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).

Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth the candle.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
@Art Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an invasion would have been justified)

Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.

Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?

You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.

Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains stability and peace, or if one does so -- take on the responsibility of investing massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would erupt as a result of one's invasion.

Felix Keverich , December 20, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will likely surrender.

After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The question will not be in this:

but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.

By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized formation or even units left -- anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian "ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade. I will open some "secret" -- nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.

P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping hole -- Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential exponentially. Ukies? Not so much -- some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of 2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics is everything.

S3 , December 20, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

flight of non-Muslims out of Europe

I think you mean Western Europe. If Germany's human capital drains to Poland et al in a reversal of the Cold War direction, those countries have a quite bright future. I wonder if any economic predictions have taken this into account yet.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%.

About 16% from 2013 to 2015 when Ukraine hit bottom:

https://www.worldeconomics.com/GrossDomesticProduct/Ukraine.gdp

AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree with him on that.

I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade them.

And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like, and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 20, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian military personnel.

The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot in Ukraine -- it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something. Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of a major shitstorm.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
@AP [MORE]
Mr. Hack , December 20, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible

Really? So why didn't Russia take Kharkiv then? Why wan't it 'feasible', Mr.Know it All?

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.

A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians ( see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian is obselete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.

AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT
@AP This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan.

That was never the object. The object was (1) to remove a hostile government and (2) replace it with a normal range government. Normal range governments aren't revanchist, aren't territorially grabby, are chary about subverting neighboring governments, and aren't in their international conduct notably driven by pride or political theo-ideology. The House of Saud, the Hashemites, Lebanon's parliamentary bosses, the Turkish military, the (post-Nasser) Egyptian military, etc. etc are all purveyors of normal-range government. NPR likely has transcripts of interview programs in early 2003 in which Wm. Kristol was a participant. Kristol was not a public official at the time, but he was the opinion-monger who most assiduously promoted the conquest of Iraq. Kristol never expected Iraq to be like Switzerland; he expected an Iraq that was 'tense' (his words), pluralistic, and willing to live in its international environment rather than against that environment.

Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?

I suspect the Shia and Kurd populations are pleased to be rid of the Baathists.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.

As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in Ukraine ( for the better)

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
@AP Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains stability and peace, o

That's a rather fantastical description of Iraq's 35 year slide under the Baathists.

AP , December 20, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT
@Art Deco I was speaking of 2003. Of course, for much of its history Saddam's regime was not that. Too bad it wasn't stopped then, if it was going to be stopped.
AP , December 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
@Gerard2

Kharkov always was and will be as pro-Russian as Donbass

Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)

Self-declared native language Kharkiv oblast: 54% Ukrainian, 44% Russian
Self-declared native language Donetsk oblast: 24% Ukrainian, 75% Russian

(not the same thing as language actually spoken, but a decent reflection of national self-identity)

2012 parliamentary election results (rounding to nearest %):

Kharkiv oblast: 62% "Blue", 32% "Orange" -- including 4% Svoboda
Donetsk oblast -- 84% "Blue", 11% "Orange" -- including 1% Svoboda

A good illustration of Russian wishful thinking fairytales compared to reality on the ground.

S3 , December 20, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT
@S3 Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is what he meant.
Sean , December 20, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
@Art Deco When calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany, Italy and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and risen greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/making-things-matter-britain-forgot-manufacturing-brexit

[...]All of those supposedly knowledge-intensive services sell mostly to manufacturing firms, so their success depends on manufacturing success. It is not because the Americans invented superior financial techniques that the world's financial centre moved from London to New York in the mid-20th century. It is because the US became the leading industrial nation.

The weakness of manufacturing is at the heart of the UK's economic problems. Reversing three and a half decades of neglect will not be easy but, unless the country provides its industrial sector with more capital, stronger public support for R&D and better-trained workers, it will not be able to build the balanced and sustainable economy that it so desperately needs.

Gerard2 , December 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
@AP Kharkiv oblast: 71% Ukrainian, 26% Russian
Donetsk oblast: 57% Ukrainian, 38% Russian (skews more Russian in the Donbas Republic parts)
Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT
@Sean When calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany, Italy and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and risen greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.

"Not very much" according to whom? Manufacturing accounts for about 15% of Europe's domestic product, about 12% of that for North America, and about 8% for that of the Antipodes. It's higher in the Far East (about 24%), but Japan is in no danger of overtaking the United States in per capita product, it's larger manufacturing sector notwithstanding. There is no region of the globe bar the Far East where that sector much exceeds 15% of total value added. Comparatively large manufacturing sectors are characteristic of the more affluent middle income countries. As countries grow more productive and affluent, their consumption patterns and productive capacity shift to services.

I've no clue why you and this fellow at The Guardian have bought into the notion that there is something magical about manufacturing (it was a popular meme a generation ago, promoted by Felix Rohaytn). By way of example, Germany and Japan have lost ground economically to the UK and the US in the last 25 years, even though they devote ~21% of their productive capacity to manufacturing in contrast to the ~11%.of the Anglosphere. (Germany remains more affluent than Britain to the tune of about 11%, but about 15% less affluent than the United States).

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
@Gerard2 Wave them hands.
Sean , December 20, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Art Deco Sorry, mistake. I meant when you do the comparison with constant prices, manufacturing has not declined very much in the US ect . Britain is different it has lost a lot of manufacturing. Britain cannot build its own nuclear power station. Germany and France have taken the industry and would have come for the City next. Britain was to be the milch cow of the EU, so it got out.

Switzerland is a rich mans country and so is Sweden. Business runs certain countries and those countries are actually adding to their productive capacity, so they are not acting like it is not profitable. That Guardian fellow is a professor of Economics at Oxford, and I already quoted you Lord Weinstock who ran just about Britain's most profitable company: it wasn't doing services. Once Weinstock retired his successor listened to the City financial geniuses, sold the manufacturing core of the business, and when times got bad the had nothing to fall back on and collapsed.

Germany does not have a single currency and Schengen Agreement free movement with the US. German goods are expensive in the US, the single currency and Schengen Agreement are an export promotion program for Germany industry. The Germans are going to deindustrialise the rest of the EU. Britain realised it had to get out now or be borged.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Sean Britain hasn't lost any manufacturing output. It indubitably has fewer workers employed in manufacturing, but manufacturing output has not declined. What's happened is that growth in production since 1990 has been concentrated in the service sector.

The decline in the salience of manufacturing in the British economy has been more rapid than it has elsewhere, but the same basic story has played out. The share of value added attributable to manufacturing hit bottom in Britain in 2006, btw.

Sean , December 20, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts. Hence low demand. Running Britain on a London and the SE boom on the rationale that the country is economically stronger relative to Germany and Japan is unstable because the strength of the country in not increasing in any meaningful sense. The recent votes in Britain should have made it clear that the country is not more stable for all the economic "success". The people feel Britain is getting weaker compared to Germany.

No one doubts that Britain has a manufacturing problem and the inefficiency is at the root of the loss of manufacturing but other counties are basically not the same, and that is why Britain left the EU. Germany is playing the manufacturing game on its own terms inside the EU with a single currency.

reiner Tor , December 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT
@Art Deco

there is something magical about manufacturing

There is. Manufacturing productivity can easily be increased. Agriculture is more difficult, and by the time its fully motorized, it's already a very small portion of the total output. While services productivity is very low and cannot be easily increased. So an economy with no manufacturing cannot raise its productivity much. It's also more difficult to export services, so countries with low manufacturing will often experience huge current account deficits.

High value added services can be risky, especially finance, which makes the country vulnerable to credit cycles. The UK could export most financial services while credit was easy. During the credit crunch it suddenly exported way less. So it's very pro-cyclical, more so than manufacturing, because such countries still need to service their oversized (due to the size of the financial sector) debts and obligations. It makes them too leveraged.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
@reiner Tor It's also more difficult to export services, so countries with low manufacturing will often experience huge current account deficits.

No. They experience current account deficits because their savings rates are under par.

There is. Manufacturing productivity can easily be increased.

Doesn't matter if all that new output of glass, steel, and rubber hasn't much of a market because people are sated.

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 11:02 pm GMT
@Sean As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts.

No, I don't know that. The compensation scales in various industrial sectors (as a % of the mean across all private sectors) are as follows:

Utilites: 206%
Management of companies and enterprises: 201%
Mining: 178%
Information: 176%
Finance: 173%
Professional, scientific and technical services: 156%
Wholesale Trade: 127%
Manufacturing: 119%
Construction: 103%
Real estate: 99%
Transportation and Warehousing: 99%
Health Care and Social Assistance: 92%
Educational services [private]: 82%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation: 81%
Administrative and waste management services: 70%
Miscellaneous svs: 69%
Accommodation: 63%
Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry: 63%
Retail trade: 60%

Wages in manufacturing are above the mean. More sophisticated technology means you're left with fewer employees (but with the skill sets to operate the machinery). (About 11% of the private sector workforce is in manufacturing).

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Sean As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts. Hence low demand.

They're not running a current account deficit of 4.4% of gdp because they're suffering from 'low demand'

Art Deco , December 20, 2017 at 11:09 pm GMT
@Art Deco These are figures for the United States by way of illustration.
RadicalCenter , December 21, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT
@AP Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage war? Must respectfully and strenuously disagree. We would be constantly at war if that were the standard. And, in fact, we HAVE been constantly at war. It has to stop.
RadicalCenter , December 21, 2017 at 1:12 am GMT
@S3 Great point, S3, and I will correct my comment to exclude Eastern Europe from the prediction of likely substantial non-Muslim flight ("Eastern Europe" meaning, for this purpose, Poland, Hungary, Belarus if it is not so foolish as to join the EU, and whatever is left of Ukraine that is not re-claimed by Russia).

But I'd also predict likely substantial "flight of non-Muslims out of Western and perhaps CENTRAL Europe", unfortunately.

Because I am not at all convinced, yet, that Austria will not continue to be colonized by Muslims. Austria may be colonized at a slower pace than Germany if the new Austrian government seriously secures its borders, deports some existing invaders who have not been granted citizenship yet, and refuses to take any new Muslim and/or African/Arab "refugees."

But even if that occurs, as I fervently hope, Muslims apparently will continue to constitute an ever-larger share of Austria's population -- based simply on the huge difference in fertility rates among non-Muslims compared to Muslims there. Even without any new immigration to Austria, an improbably happy state of affairs, Austrians simply don't have enough children to replace themselves. Not even close.

With Austrian TFR so persistently low, all Muslims in Austria need to do is maintain a TFR at replacement (say, 2.1), and they will take over the country.

That new government had better get to work if they don't want to see Austrians fleeing east (or to the USA) along with the droves of Germans who will certainly be underway.

AP , December 21, 2017 at 2:59 am GMT
@RadicalCenter

Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage war

Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean we should have done it, even if that were the reason. As you said, we can't keep doing this everywhere all the time. Nor am I claiming it is possible (it was done in Japan but Japan is not Iraq). But if we did invade, and then did whatever had to be done to transform the place from a Baathist dictatorship with radical Islam simmering underneath, into a stable, decent, secular, Christian-tolerant and allied country, that would have been legitimate.

S3 , December 21, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
@RadicalCenter Does Austria have anything like the US's RICO Act? Creating something like it and generously applying it to immigrant crime would be one of my suggestions, a California-style three-strikes law would be another.

The in-your-face pro-natality propaganda does not seem to be working. So maybe something subtler is required, like asking television and film studios to produce more traditional role-models for women. More scenes of doting mothers and adorable babies. And yes, Kurz's wife should definitely be given a role.

Talha , December 21, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT
@RadicalCenter On a roll.
gT , December 21, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.

Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.

So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.

The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.

Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.

But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics. But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only momentarily after all.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT
@gT Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the world.

Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had 2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.

And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their "presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.

This is a fantasy.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
@gT Why not post sober?
gT , December 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm GMT
@Art Deco Fantasy?

Read here about Merkel obeying her real masters

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/editorial-merkel-has-left-germans-high-and-dry-a-911425.html

and read here about "BERLIN IS WASHINGTON'S VASSAL UNTIL 2099″

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-183232

I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies." Seems its not only the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.

Also https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/06/05/germany-still-under-the-control-of-foreign-powers/
(damn South Africans popping up everywhere)

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT
@gT Yes, a fantasy. That you put your gloss on news reports and locate other fantasists does not make it less of a fantasy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 21, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT
@Art Deco

That you put your gloss on news reports

Pray tell how military-political analysis works without news? Your angle on OSI (Open Source Intelligence) would also be "interesting".

Sean , December 21, 2017 at 8:47 pm GMT
@Art Deco Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing, Singapore is first. Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual economy.
Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT
Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual economy.

Well, you're not looking for them.

Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing, Singapore is first.

About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing. You find the same ratio in Serbia, which no one will mistake for an affluent and economically dynamic country.

Art Deco , December 21, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov 1. There is no 'President of Japan'.

2. Neither the Japanese Emperor nor the President of Germany take an oath of allegiance to the United States or any American official.

3. Neither the Chancellor of Germany nor the Prime Minister of Japan are incapable of making a decision without consulting the U.S. Embassy. (Manned by Caroline Kennedy at one point in Japan).

Johann Ricke , December 22, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT
@Art Deco

About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing.

The amusing thing is that the stock-in-trade of both Switzerland and Singapore is some combo of private banking, tax-avoidance and money laundering. That's why the per capita income is so high. It's bloated by the portfolio income of wealthy people like Marc Rich, Robert Mugabe and Zuckerberg's Brazilian business partner.

[Dec 22, 2017] Will the US try to Pull Maidan Scenario in Russia by Konrad Stachnio

Notable quotes:
"... As explicitly said Brzezinski, the trophy for the United States is Eurasia – that is why Putin cannot be summer for 'pro-democracy' movements in Moscow, unless he wants to share the fate of Qaddafi. The United States and its vassals from EU do not like it. They do not like strong, independent Russia that can speak for itself. So that is way they want to install a more 'pro-democracy' government in Moscow. ..."
"... First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/09/20/try-new-maidan-in-russia-doubt-it/ ..."
Sep 20, 2014 | abundanthope.net

On 21 st of September, the so-called "opposition" in Moscow and St. Petersburg is planning demonstrations that should gather 50-thousand people in the streets against (here I laughed) cessation of Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Russian suppression of Ukrainian independence.

Do you think that Putin has so many enemies in Moscow and St. Petersburg that out of despair and powerlessness people have to go out on the streets?

"Actually, we want to change the government, we do not want Putin. We are tired of his politics. We wait until we receive a new political movement and the resources that Russia has will not be in the hands of only a narrow number of the so-called "managers of Russia" and will be more parcelled out in the community. Here in Moscow actually are people who do not want Putin in power. But we do not go out on the streets rather talk among themselves. We do not have any tools, any party, no movement of which we would really identify with ".

These are the words of my friend, a forty-year-old resident of Moscow, who considers herself to be Putin dissident. The demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg are organized by the so-called autonomous group People's Will (Narodnaya Volya).

In the era of Russia's encirclement by NATO, the upcomig regular weapons shipments for Ukraine money, it is not a surprise that Putin is taking preocupations against the so-called "pro-democratic" NGOs in Russia. It was after all NGOs in Kiev that led the coup.

"It expresses the need to understand the common struggle of all the oppressed people for their liberation from the oppression of the state, imperialist policy, regardless of who it comes from" "Freedom to nations, death to empires." – those are the ideas that Russian Nationalists preached during a demonstration in March.

Quite a different opinion on this subject has Mateusz Piskorski, a frequent visitor to Moscow and Ukraine. Founder of the European Centre for Geopolitical, in an interview which I conducted with him said about an organized demonstration on 21st of September:

"It's hard for me to imagine that someone has collected so many people with so much support for Putin in Russia reaching 80%. It made me curious: even existing opponents of Putin in case of the Crimea and the Ukraine fully support Putin. I think we sooner would gather 50,000 people under the banner of harder proceedings for Ukrainian crisis. Many Russian environments believes that Putin should have long ago defended civilians against Kiev attacks and long ago entered the army there. "

"At this stage, having that kind of support, Putin does not need to use any repressions because the opposition is a trace and artificial, i.e. Orchestrating in one way or another, financed, (today already illegally funded) by those who financed Euromaidan in Kiev. We even have a personal coincidence. The new United States Ambassador Jeffrey Teft, preparing earlier Euromaidan, (he was ambassador in Kiev earlier, worked with these NGOs – and indeed located in the pay of the Department of State in Ukraine), today he continues the same action in Moscow. He does not take into account that Russia is a country and Ukraine was not – or it will not be so easy, for sure. It would be necessary to pump there a lot more money than the $ 5 billion of which Americans told in the context of Ukraine ".

Mr. Matthew is right that now the Americans are trying to do 'more'. Russia is a country larger than Ukraine. So measures to be taken also need to be bigger. If you still do not know where you can take a 'pro-democracy dollars' this can help you:

The American Congress brought a bill, prepared by 26 Republicans, among which is jammed Russophobe, John McCain. Document number 2277 is placed on the official website of the Congress of the United States and is called "Russian Aggression Prevention Act 2014″, which can be translated as "the act of preventing aggression by Russia in 2014." In addition to all kinds of sanctions, to increase military presence and conduct military exercises around the borders of Russia, as well as increased activity in the field of educational exchange programs and cultural events held in the territory of the former Soviet Union, i t shall provide annual commitments of $ 10 billion in the period 2015-2017, for "the development of democracy in Russia " . We can read it on Infowars.

However, Putin is not stupid that's why he is dealing with NGO in American fashion. Now all NGOs in Russia are trampled as agents of influence and must formally demonstrate their funding.

In a statement published on March 26, Catherine Ashton – the same Margaret Ashton, whose conversation with the Estonian foreign minister leaked to the Internet telling us about the fact that behind the snipers firing at civilians stood the leaders of maydan. She stated that inspections and searches (NGOs) are carried out on vague grounds of legal concern, because they seem to be aimed at further undermining civil society activities in Russia.

The same open society which we saw in Kiev during the 'spontaneous' protests. George Soros, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar Network Omidyar and his foundation, as well as the National Endowment for Democracy, which is largely funded by the US Congress is one of the 'pro-democracy movements in Ukraine that funded the 'democracy' .

We may have the impression that Russia is in fact a totalitarian state like North Korea where there are almost no civil liberties. But let's not be naive. There's a reason why such institutions are officially called the agents of foreign influence in Russia. Just look at the coup d'état in Ukraine organized by them to know why.

Russia in its modern history has scored a single limited intervention in Georgia. USA attacks one country after another based on false evidence and their 'democratic intervention' we can probably count in tens.

As explicitly said Brzezinski, the trophy for the United States is Eurasia – that is why Putin cannot be summer for 'pro-democracy' movements in Moscow, unless he wants to share the fate of Qaddafi. The United States and its vassals from EU do not like it. They do not like strong, independent Russia that can speak for itself. So that is way they want to install a more 'pro-democracy' government in Moscow.

Mateusz Piskorski summed it in the aforementioned interview which he gave me;

"As long as Europe does not have its own leaders, Putin's popularity will grow. Hope was in the Germans and Merkel. But it proved that the influence of the United States is stronger than the German business and German citizens. Currently, tests are conducted that say that a large part of European societies would see Vladimir Putin as their own leader or prime minister. Putin, in contrast to other 'pro-democracy' puppets knows how to clearly articulate its national interest. On this political background to what we look right now, he looks like a real leader. "

Konrad Stachnio is an independent Poland based journalist, he hosted a number of radio and TV programs for the Polish edition of PrisonPlanet , exclusively for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook"

First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/09/20/try-new-maidan-in-russia-doubt-it/

http://journal-neo.org/2014/09/20/try-new-maidan-in-russia-doubt-it/

[Dec 22, 2017] Felix Keverich

Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

, December 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT

@Art Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion, and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your countrymen didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
@Art Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or even Islamist in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq anymore the worst thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (bad, but hardly an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to deal with his regime in coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them in place for the foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was purely a war of choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather questionable, it's you who needs to get out more.
reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT
@Art Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).

I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed that the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but it never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians, but that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time after the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are totally unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.

reiner Tor , December 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@German_reader

and that was clearly discernible at the time

Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies, especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO, especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists among them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts for their electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like NATO wasn't really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors (some of them). This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
@reiner Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"

Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen together,

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:

James Mattis' 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world affairs.

which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.

In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama took office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US forces in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto present on the sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have an Iraqi collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran, but the long Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought hard, but were mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US occupiers, as indeed had much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both cases.

Military occupations are morally complicated like that.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Art Deco

Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.

Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of victory and defeat on your part.

The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi military and the occupation of the country.

However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of US power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of the war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of American national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US regime policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant, and the overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with vigorous sunni jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US as most ME states are.

So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial military victory.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Randal

The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis

I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that hating Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an accident that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's favourite.

Felix Keverich , December 18, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Art Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Art Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was merely a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the region according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war increased Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@German_reader

Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.

It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of the charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should have resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did not want to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a democracy in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT
@Johann Ricke

Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished business.

No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do so, and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still largely applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).

The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.

This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the time, instead.

More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice, and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught as such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up trying to rationalise it) for generations to come.

Swedish Family , December 18, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
@Art Deco

They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.

Only by air.

For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify, track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes land in Syrian airports every day.

However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/12/httpssouthfrontorgfirst-iranian-military-convoy-enters-syria-through-land-route-from-iraq-reports.html

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT
@Art Deco

The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.

That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.

The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is a great idea.

As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests

Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it displays in all the wars it has ever fought.

You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.

RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
RadicalCenter , December 18, 2017 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Art Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak & correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.

Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of) the EU.

Johann Ricke , December 18, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT
@Randal

Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo chamber.

"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing Tikritis or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's rule. The big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced both Shiites and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of Uncle Sam. They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable one, given Iraq's strategic location.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
@Johann Ricke

What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury

No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were hugely counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and broken former enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined with a strong ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.

Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers. If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a defeat.

But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would have been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama was over Syria.

However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone

Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game of alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war) and regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying something Americans don't like to hear).

They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without American assistance.

Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in due course with Iranian backing.

In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than pretending to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of overthrowing the Syria government, American-style.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT
@German_reader I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type, and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments being level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of other topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility for the periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.

To which I added:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming form a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger tips. And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is; reality is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories and speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His quality and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data and he hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in newspapers. Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have been its supreme director.

His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to Art Deco handle this Monday.

Randal , December 19, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:

US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except, bizarrely, it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly was one of the first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:

The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.

"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."

The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:

The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic, after all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
@utu Art Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I suppose his views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US right-wingers (a serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT
@German_reader Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden weapons

The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had them. If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the ostensive cause for the invasion.

I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria. The WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including Brits or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT
@German_reader it makes little sense to attack him personally

Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so I must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a hopeless case.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
@utu

The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.

Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s, with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

German_reader , December 19, 2017 at 12:48 am GMT
@utu With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an "organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his views aren't unusual.
RadicalCenter , December 19, 2017 at 3:16 am GMT
@German_reader Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm angry at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying himself with drugs or whatever.
John Gruskos , December 19, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT
@German_reader The commenter using the name "Art Deco" is NOT an American nationalist.

He is neocon trash.

utu , December 19, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
@German_reader Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.

What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished 100%.

LondonBob , December 19, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT
@utu Israel wanted Iraq destroyed, it was.
AP , December 20, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
@Art Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which I disagree with you).

I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who deserves no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial drain but having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have been worth it (I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of being groomed for such a role).

Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money, and loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle East conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is, that it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR would have been sunk.

TT , December 20, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have brainwashed all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and milk, people of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of DemoNcracy made in USA.

[Dec 20, 2017] It seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring politicians and public than Al Queda.

Notable quotes:
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
Mar 23, 2017 |
fresno dan March 22, 2017 at 6:56 pm

So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates? ?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance" and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of it – the supposed "safeguards".

I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.

And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news" – some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of winning tic tac toe .

Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)

craazyboy March 22, 2017 at 8:45 pm

If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement, he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.

Irredeemable Deplorable March 23, 2017 at 2:57 am

Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported in the fakenews MSM.

Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh yeah.

Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.

The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc.

You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.

AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.

Lambert Strether Post author March 23, 2017 at 4:08 am

> Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable

I think he knew about it. After fulminating about weedy technicalities, let me just say that Obama's EO12333 expansion made sure that whatever anti-Trump information got picked up by the intelligence community could be spread widely, and would be hard to trace back to an individual source .

[Dec 20, 2017] Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isnt this what Paul Ryan means by A Better Way

Mar 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Jerry Brown : March 12, 2017 at 10:26 PM , 2017 at 10:26 PM
Nice post at Econospeak. The Safeway Amendment Scam - EconoSpeak

Especially agree with the conclusion- "Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isn't this what Paul Ryan means by "A Better Way"?"

pgl -> Jerry Brown... , March 13, 2017 at 01:48 AM
Check out the latest from the disgusting Paul Ryan:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-number-who-will-lose-coverage-up-to-people

He is gloating that we have more "choices" as he takes away any possible means for actually paying for our health care. This in a nutshell is the entire GOP approach. We are free to die.

Lee A. Arnold -> pgl... , March 13, 2017 at 04:41 AM
"Free to die, Pay to live!"
DrDick -> pgl... , March 13, 2017 at 07:33 AM
In my state, one company (BC/BS) controls 0ver 70% of the health insurance market and there are only two other even marginally significant players. Market based my ...

[Dec 19, 2017] Anatol Lieven: A Trap of Their Own Making The consequences of the new imperialism. Book review LRB 8 May 2003

May 08, 2003 |

Nineteenth-century empires were often led on from one war to another as a result of developments which imperial governments did not plan and domestic populations did not desire. In part this was the result of plotting by individual 'prancing proconsuls', convinced they could gain a reputation at small risk, given the superiority of their armies to any conceivable opposition; but it was also the result of factors inherent in the imperial process.

The difference today is that overwhelming military advantage is possessed not by a set of competing Western states, but by one state alone. Other countries may possess elements of the technology, and many states are more warlike than America; but none possesses anything like the ability of the US to integrate these elements (including Intelligence) into an effective whole, and to combine them with weight of firepower, capacity to transport forces over long distances and national bellicosity. The most important question now facing the world is the use the Bush Administration will make of its military dominance, especially in the Middle East. The next question is when and in what form resistance to US domination over the Middle East will arise. That there will be resistance is certain. It would be contrary to every historical precedent to believe that such a quasi-imperial hegemony will not stir up resentment, which sooner or later is bound to find an effective means of expression.

US domination over the Middle East will, for the most part, be exercised indirectly, and will provoke less grievance than direct administration would, but one likely cause of trouble is the 'proletarian colonisation' of Israel – the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. Given past experience and the indications now coming from Israel, there is little reason to hope for any fundamental change in Israeli policies. Sharon may eventually withdraw a few settlements – allowing the US Administration and the Israeli lobby to present this as a major concession and sacrifice – but unless there is a tremendous upheaval in both Israeli and US domestic politics, he and his successors are unlikely to offer the Palestinians anything more than tightly controlled bantustans.

Palestinian terrorism, Israeli repression and wider Arab and Muslim resentment seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

How long it will be before serious resistance grows is hard to tell. In some 19th-century cases, notably Afghanistan, imperial rule never consolidated itself and was overthrown almost immediately by new revolts. In others, it lasted for decades without involving too much direct repression, and ended only after tremendous social, economic, political and cultural changes had taken place not only in the colonies and dependencies but in the Western imperial countries themselves. Any attempt to predict the future of the Middle East must recognise that the new era which began on 11 September 2001 has not only brought into the open certain latent pathologies in American and British society, culture and politics; it has also fully revealed the complete absence of democratic modernisation, or indeed any modernisation, in all too much of the Muslim world.

The fascination and the horror of the present time is that so many different and potentially disastrous possibilities suggest themselves. The immediate issue is whether the US will attack any other state. Or, to put the question another way: will the US move from hegemony to empire in the Middle East? And if it does, will it continue to march from victory to victory, or will it suffer defeats which will sour American public support for the entire enterprise?

For Britain, the most important question is whether Tony Blair, in his capacity as a senior adviser to President Bush, can help to stop US moves in this direction and, if he fails, whether Britain is prepared to play the only role it is likely to be offered in a US empire: that fulfilled by Nepal in the British Empire – a loyal provider of brave soldiers with special military skills. Will the British accept a situation in which their chief international function is to provide auxiliary cohorts to accompany the Roman legions of the US, with the added disadvantage that British cities, so far from being protected in return by the empire, will be exposed to destruction by 'barbarian' counter-attacks?

As is clear from their public comments, let alone their private conversations, the Neo-Conservatives in America and their allies in Israel would indeed like to see a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world which defies the US and Israel, with ideological justification provided by the American mission civilisatrice – 'democratisation'. In the words of the Israeli Major-General Ya'akov Amidror, writing in April under the auspices of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, 'Iraq is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Iraq will be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means structurally changing the entire area.' The Neo-Con model is the struggle against 'Communism', which they are convinced was won by the Reaganite conflation of military toughness and ideological crusading. The ultimate goal here would be world hegemony by means of absolute military superiority.

The Neo-Cons may be deluding themselves, however. It may well be that, as many US officials say in private, Bush's new national security strategy is 'a doctrine for one case only' – namely Iraq. Those who take this position can point to the unwillingness of most Americans to see themselves in imperial terms, coupled with their powerful aversion to foreign entanglements, commitments and sacrifices. The Bush Administration may have made menacing statements about Syria, but it has also assured the American people that the US military occupation of Iraq will last 18 months at the very most. Furthermore, if the economy continues to falter, it is still possible that Bush will be ejected from office in next year's elections. Should this happen, some of the US's imperial tendencies will no doubt remain in place – scholars as different as Andrew Bacevich and Walter Russell Mead have stressed the continuity in this regard from Bush through Clinton to Bush, and indeed throughout US history. However, without the specific configuration of hardline elements empowered by the Bush Administration, American ambitions would probably take on a less megalomaniac and frightening aspect.

In this analysis, both the grotesque public optimism of the Neo-Con rhetoric about democratisation and its exaggeration of threats to the US stem from the fact that it takes a lot to stir ordinary Americans out of their customary apathy with regard to international affairs. While it is true that an element of democratic messianism is built into what Samuel Huntington and others have called 'the American Creed', it is also the case that many Americans have a deep scepticism – healthy or chauvinist according to taste – about the ability of other countries to develop their own forms of democracy.

In the case of Iraq, this scepticism has been increased by the scenes of looting and disorder. In addition, there have been well-publicised harbingers both of incipient ethnic conflict and of strong mass opposition to a long-term US military presence and a US-chosen Iraqi Government. Even the Washington Post , which was one of the cheerleaders for this war in the 'serious' American press, and which has not been too anxious to publicise Iraqi civilian casualties, has reported frankly on the opposition to US plans for Iraq among the country's Shia population in particular.

Even if most Americans and a majority of the Administration want to move to indirect control over Iraq, the US may well find that it has no choice but to exercise direct rule. Indeed, even those who hated the war may find themselves morally trapped into supporting direct rule if the alternative appears to be a collapse into anarchy, immiseration and ethnic conflict. There is a tremendous difference in this regard between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the mass of the population has been accustomed to fend for itself with very little help from the state, very little modern infrastructure and for that matter very little formal employment. In these circumstances, it was possible for the US to install a ramshackle pretence of a coalition government in Kabul, with a tenuous truce between its elements held in place by an international peacekeeping force backed by US firepower. The rest of the country could be left in the hands of warlords, clans and ethnic militias, as long as they made their territories open hunting ranges for US troops in their search for al-Qaida. The US forces launch these raids from airbases and heavily fortified, isolated camps in which most soldiers are kept rigidly separated from Afghans.

Doubtless many US planners would be delighted to dominate Iraq in the same semi-detached way, but Iraq is a far more modern society than Afghanistan, and much more heavily urbanised: without elements of modern infrastructure and services and a state to guarantee them, living standards there will not recover. Iraq needs a state; but for a whole set of reasons, it will find the creation of a workable democratic state extremely difficult. The destruction of the Baath regime has involved the destruction of the Sunni Arab military dominance on which the Iraqi state has depended since its creation by the British. Neither the US nor anyone else has any clear idea of what to put in its place (if one ignores the fatuous plan of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to install Ahmad Chalabi as an American puppet and Iraqi strongman). Equally important, the US will not allow the creation of a truly independent state. Ultimately, it may well see itself as having no choice but to create the state itself and remain deeply involved not just in supporting it but in running it, as the British did in Egypt for some sixty years.

Very often – perhaps most of the time – the old imperial powers preferred to exercise control indirectly, through client states. This was far cheaper, far easier to justify domestically and ran far less chance of provoking native revolt. The problem was that the very act of turning a country into a client tended to cripple the domestic prestige of the client regime, and to place such economic, political and moral pressures on it that it was liable to collapse. The imperial power then had the choice of either pulling out (and allowing the area to fall into the hands of enemies) or stepping in and imposing direct control. This phenomenon can be seen from Awadh and Punjab in the 1840s to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1989.

Of course, the threat to imperial client states did not come only from within their own borders. In a world where ethnic, clan, religious and personal loyalties spilled across national boundaries, a power that seized one territory was likely to find itself inexorably drawn to conquering its neighbours. There were always military, commercial or missionary interests to agitate for this expansion, often backed by exiled opposition groups ready to stress that the mass of the population would rejoice in an imperial invasion to bring them to power.

Whatever the Neo-Cons and the Israeli Government may wish, there is I believe no fixed intention on the part of the US Administration to attack either Syria or Iran, let alone Saudi Arabia. What it had in mind was that an easy and crushing US victory over Iraq would so terrify other Muslim states that they would give up any support for terrorist groups, collaborate fully in cracking down on terrorists and Islamist radicals, and abandon their own plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, thereby making it unnecessary for the US to attack them. This applied not only to perceived enemies such as Syria, Iran and Libya, but to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and other states seen as unreliable allies in the 'war against terrorism'. If the US restricts itself to this strategy and this goal, it may enjoy success – for a while at least. Several states in the region are clearly running very scared. Moreover, every single state in the region – including Iran – feels under threat from the forces of Sunni Islamist revolution as represented by al-Qaida and its ideological allies; so there is a genuine common interest in combating them.

But for this strategy to work across such a wide range of states and societies as those of the Muslim world, US policymakers would have to display considerable sensitivity and discrimination. These are virtues not usually associated with the Bush Administration, least of all in its present triumphalist mood. The policy is in any case not without its dangers. What happens if the various pressures put on the client regimes cause them to collapse? And what happens if an enemy calls America's bluff, and challenges it to invade? It is all too easy to see how a new US offensive could result. Another major terrorist attack on the US could upset all equations and incite another wave of mass hysteria that would make anything possible. If, for example, it were once again perceived to have been financed and staffed by Saudis, the pressure for an attack on Saudi Arabia could become overwhelming. The Iranian case is even trickier. According to informed European sources, the Iranians may be within two years of developing a nuclear deterrent (it's even possible that successful pressure on Russia to cut off nuclear trade would not make any crucial difference). Israel in particular is determined to forestall Iranian nuclear capability, and Israeli commentators have made it clear that Israel will take unilateral military action if necessary. If the US and Israeli Governments are indeed determined to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, they may not have much time.

The second factor is the behaviour of the Shias of Iraq, and especially of Iranian-backed factions. Leading Shia groups have boycotted the initial discussions on forming a government. If they maintain this position, and if the US fails to create even the appearance of a viable Iraqi government, with disorder spreading in consequence, Iran will be blamed, rightly or not, by powerful elements in Washington. They will use it as an additional reason to strike against Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Tehran might well promote not only a further destabilisation of Iraq but a terrorist campaign against the US, which would in turn provoke more US retaliations until a full-scale war became a real possibility.

Although the idea of an American invasion of Iran is viewed with horror by most military analysts (and, as far as I can gather, by the uniformed military), the latest polls suggest that around 50 per cent of Americans are already prepared to support a war to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Moreover, the voices of moderation among the military tend to be the same ones which warned – as I did – of the possibility of stiff Iraqi resistance to a US invasion and the dangers of urban warfare in Baghdad, opposed Rumsfeld's plans to invade with limited numbers of relatively lightly armed troops and felt vindicated in their concern by the initial setbacks around Nasiriya and elsewhere. The aftermath has shown Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to have been correct in their purely military calculations about Iraq, and this will undoubtedly strengthen them in future clashes with the uniformed military. Rumsfeld's whole strategy of relying on lighter, more easily transportable forces is, of course, precisely designed to make such imperial expeditions easier.

As for the majority of Americans, well, they have already been duped once, by a propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime democracies: by the end of it, between 42 and 56 per cent of Americans (the polls vary) were convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 11 September. This gave the run-up to the war a peculiarly nightmarish quality in the US. It was as if the full truth about Tonkin Gulf, instead of emerging in dribs and drabs over a decade, had been fully available and in the open the whole time – and the US intervention in Vietnam had happened anyway.

While the special place of Saddam Hussein in American demonology means that this wouldn't be an easy trick to repeat, the American public's ignorance of international affairs in general and the Muslim world in particular make it by no means impossible. It isn't just Fox TV: numerous even more rabid media outlets, the Christian Coalition and parts of the Israeli lobby are all dedicated to whipping up hatred of Arabs and Muslims. More important is the fact that most Americans accept Bush's equation of terrorism and 'evil', which makes it extremely difficult to conduct any serious public discussion of threats from the Muslim world in terms which would be acceptable or even comprehensible to a mass American audience. Add to this the severe constraints on the discussion of the role of Israel, and you have a state of public debate close to that described by Marcuse. If America suffered another massive terrorist attack in the coming years, the dangers would be incomparably greater.

If the plans of the Neo-Cons depended on mass support for imperialism within the US, they would be doomed to failure. The attacks of 11 September, however, have given American imperialists the added force of wounded nationalism – a much deeper, more popular and more dangerous phenomenon, strengthened by the Israeli nationalism of much of the American Jewish community. Another attack on the American mainland would further inflame that nationalism, and strengthen support for even more aggressive and ambitious 'retaliations'. The terrorists may hope that they will exhaust Americans' will to fight, as the Vietcong did; if so, they may have underestimated both the tenacity and the ferocity of Americans when they feel themselves to have been directly attacked. The capacity for ruthlessness of the nationalist or Jacksonian element in the American democratic tradition – as in the firebombing of Japan and North Korea, neither of which had targeted American civilians – has been noted by Walter Russell Mead, and was recently expressed by MacGregor Knox, an American ex-soldier, now a professor at the LSE: Europeans 'may believe that the natural order of things as they perceive it – the restraint of American power through European wisdom – will sooner or later triumph. But such expectations are delusional. Those who find militant Islam terrifying have clearly never seen a militant democracy.'

America could certainly be worn out by a protracted guerrilla struggle on the scale of Vietnam. It seems unlikely, however, that a similar struggle could be mounted in the Middle East – unless the US were to invade Iran, at which point all bets and predictions would be off. Another terrorist attack on the US mainland, using some form of weapons of mass destruction, far from demoralising the US population would probably whip it into chauvinist fury.

To understand why successful guerrilla warfare against the US is unlikely (quite apart from the fact that there are no jungles in the Middle East), it is necessary to remember that the imperial domination made possible by 19th-century Western military superiority was eventually destroyed by three factors: first, the development of military technology (notably such weapons as the automatic rifle, the grenade and modern explosives) which considerably narrowed the odds between Western armies and 'native' insurgents. Second, the development of modern ideologies of resistance – Communist, nationalist or a combination of the two – which in turn produced the cadres and structures to organise resistance. Third, weariness on the part of 'metropolitan' populations and elites, stemming partly from social and cultural change, and partly from a growing awareness that direct empire did not pay economically.

Guerrilla warfare against the US is now a good deal more difficult because of two undramatic but immensely important innovations: superbly effective and light bullet-proof vests and helmets which make the US and British soldier almost as well protected as the medieval knight; and night-vision equipment which denies the guerrilla the aid of his oldest friend and ally, darkness. Both of these advantages can be countered, but it will be a long time before the odds are narrowed again. Of course, local allies of the US can be targeted, but their deaths are hardly noticed by US public opinion. More and more, therefore, 'asymmetric warfare' will encourage a move to terrorism.

The absence or failure of revolutionary parties led by cadres working for mass mobilisation confirms this. The Islamists may alter this situation, despite the disillusioning fate of the Iranian Revolution. But as far as the nationalists are concerned, it has been tried in the past, and while it succeeded in expelling the colonialists and their local clients, it failed miserably to produce modernised states. Algeria is a clear example: a hideously savage but also heroic rebellion against a particularly revolting form of colonialism – which eventually led to such an utterly rotten and unsuccessful independent state that much of the population eventually turned to Islamic revolution.

And now this, too, is discredited, above all in the one major country where it succeeded, Iran. Arab states have failed to develop economically, politically and socially, and they have also failed properly to unite. When they have united for the purposes of war, they have been defeated. Rebellion against the US may take place in Iraq. Elsewhere, the mass response to the latest Arab defeat seems more likely to be a further wave of despair, disillusionment and retreat into private life – an 'internal emigration'. In some fortunate cases, this may lead to a new Islamist politics focused on genuine reform and democratic development – along the lines of the changes in Turkey. But a cynicism which only feeds corruption and oppression is just as likely a result.

Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority, there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or too embittered – take your pick – for such a course. They are the natural recruits for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.

[Dec 18, 2017] Strangelove impersonations

Dec 18, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

MakeBeerNotWar -> Smallworld5 , 4 Dec 2014 03:17

'MEIN FUHRER!! - I CAN WALK!!!!'

LOL Oh, yes- same here. My late father loved Peter Sellers and to my mother's annoyance would sometimes do Strangelove impersonations w jerking arm. His WWII convoy officer veteran half German (and fully German fluent) father also thought the film was funny as hell and few German Americans hated the Nazis as much as my grandfather did.

I saw the film for the very first time as a US Marine PFC stationed in Okinawa Autumn 1981 during of all things, a big typhoon which kept us confined to some scattered barracks up at then remote- and beautiful- Camp Schwab. Two bored captains touring my deserted barracks I stood duty in noticed in one cubicle a Beta video player and copy of the film and- kid you not- when I confessed I had never seen the film, ordered me to watch it with them and I was hooked. The two officers laughed hysterically like naughty little school boys on the bunk they sat on as I pulled up a wooden footlocker. Utterly brilliant and imo has aged well- a masterpiece.

Making of docu:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ6BiRtGTAk

'I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.' - Sellers' creepy chuckle in response to Sterling Hayden's deranged rant alone still has me howling.

I grew up during the "hottest" part of the Cold War with my family living literally next to a Nike nuclear SAM site(w armed sentries and scary dogs inside the barbed wire) in San Pedro, CA. - we never lost any sleep over it even tho my '50s conscript Army vet dad quipped we were a high priority target in any war w the Soviets.

http://www.ftmac.org/lanike1.htm

http://www.coldwarla.com/missile-sites.html

- I find myself missing the Cold War sometimes- the moral certainties were better defined.

[Dec 18, 2017] Who is Ashton Carter

This was three years ago. nothing changed...
Notable quotes:
"... Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it. ..."
"... One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way. ..."
Dec 03, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
MakeBeerNotWar -> Smallworld5 , 3 Dec 2014 20:23
- Dr Strangelove would approve.
MakeBeerNotWar , 3 Dec 2014 20:21
I heard earlier today on the radio Carter is Obama's nom- I laughed as I called it here last week- Obama's Deep State masters' top pick as a very smooth below radar Trojan Horse neo con who will fly through confirmation and has doubtless has big plans. The GOP and the MIC will love him, new wars will be cooked up for Americans to die in and I'm sure he has less than democratic views on Americans who will protest their govt for this. The Soviets' crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring makes for a nice blueprint on how to silence dissent if the anti Occupy tactics don't work and a dialed down version of martial law could be here to stay.
MarkThomason , 3 Dec 2014 18:41
Ashton Carter was one of the most extreme of the neocon hawks in the upper levels of the Bush Admin. His specific assignment was to ensure there could never be a "peer competitor" by throwing money at the bleeding cutting edge of weapons technology.

Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it.

One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way.

However, now with Carter we see that the neocons have captured the policy part of the Obama Admin -- it wasn't an accident, it was design that we did that, and now will go back into Iraq, attack Syria, and attack Iran.

midnightschild10 , 3 Dec 2014 18:03
What could go wrong with someone advocating bombing North Korea? Just the type of person the job requires. The only criteria for the job was: must love war. So, while we are bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen, occasionally Pakistan, we can figure out how much we will pay contractors for armament to take care of Iran and North Korea as well. He will certainly fit into Obama's cabinet as another yes man. Just like so many who have no military experience outside of watching war movies and video games, he is exactly what Obama wants. Someone who agrees how easy it is to start wars. He probably won't face much opposition since Obama has become an official member of the neocons now running the country. Anyone who would caution that the unending wars are taking the country down the road that destroyed the Soviet Union need not apply. The US doesn't feel that domestic issues are a priority, why put money into fixing the failing infrastructure when you can buy more drones. He'll do fine as long as he takes his orders from Nuland, Psaki and Harf.
zelazny , 3 Dec 2014 17:51
Another sociopath willing to do the biding of the sociopaths who run the USA. The rich profit immensely from the department of war, as this article intimates. Every dead Muslim child means profits for rich Americans.
Micheal Cairagan , 3 Dec 2014 17:25
Don't know about secretary of war, but he was great in "The Butterfly Effect".
MBDifani , 3 Dec 2014 16:05
I wonder if Mr. Carter will last as long as the late Sec. of Defense McNamara who served from early '61 to early 1968 when Pres. Johnson moved him to the head of the UN World Bank. A former secretary was William Cohen, a Republican, who served under Clinton. Leon Panetta and Robert Gates did well, but both wrote critical books about Obama after leaving. A complex job, dealing with the White House and the four star hawks in the Pentagon. Oh, a few doves too.

[Dec 18, 2017] Russia-Gate Is State-Sponsored Paranoia by Gilbert Doctorow

It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | russia-insider.com

"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."

"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"

- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in parliament.

The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large.

This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.

Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin.

Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical survival.

In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote 98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.

There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com .

The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.

Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.

The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."

The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted. Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American presidential election.

In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.

* * * *

Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9 time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel, they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free app.

I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking.

The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.

Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.

"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.

During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my participation in these talk shows are as follows:

For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content that I believe is important to this discussion.

My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in the guests' lounge before the program went on air.

Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.

As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's negativism.

To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.

In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary "World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank since.

Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the Kremlin to the USA at various times.

For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.

On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.

The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes' tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.

To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West European and American commentators.

As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office

The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day after the elections.

A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World, which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.

Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning. Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and off-the-cuff.

During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement, and suggesting seditious intent.

In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.

Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.

The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.

Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in full:

"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.

Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the conscience of the world.

Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It will end badly.

Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the world will be at the brink of a big war "

Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man" whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a great rupture in bilateral relations.

The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."

This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration for what the United States has achieved and represents.

The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require attribution to one or another participant:

"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."

"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application. After lunch you can open your business."

"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement."

"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."

How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur.

* * * *

Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.

However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.

And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.

It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in the territories under consideration.

As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war.

It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.

TONY LANE , December 17, 2017 9:59 AM

But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.

Kjell Hasthi -> TONY LANE , December 17, 2017 1:50 PM

JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the American president is enemy, you are not American

Jimmy Robertson , December 17, 2017 9:22 AM

As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items:

https://viableopposition.bl...

The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States.

tom -> Jimmy Robertson , December 17, 2017 9:23 AM

"Remember the Maine!"

GKW -> tom , December 17, 2017 2:13 PM

Don't forget the Turner Joy and the gulf of Tonkin.

John Tosh , December 17, 2017 9:47 AM

Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises....

It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle.

Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.

Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so please shut up once and for all.

You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise. Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That is what you need to practice.

Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your propaganda.

YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you feel better... Big fat cowards.!

Guy -> John Tosh , December 17, 2017 1:16 PM

I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .

All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed.

ALTERNATE HISTORY -> John Tosh , December 17, 2017 6:15 PM

They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.

tom , December 17, 2017 9:39 AM

"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".

Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".

Emmet Sweeney , December 17, 2017 4:31 PM

The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West - and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.

tom , December 17, 2017 9:20 AM

'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'

This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap.

But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.

It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".

CaperAsh -> tom , December 17, 2017 4:17 PM

Yes, but R's comment was delightfully witty, and a great 'high ground manoeuvre.'

John C Carleton , December 17, 2017 7:20 AM

Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".

That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of, not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!

Kjell Hasthi -> John C Carleton , December 17, 2017 1:43 PM

- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".

The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals. This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.

rosemerry , December 17, 2017 3:29 PM

What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.

thomas malthaus -> Nationalist Globalist Oligarch , December 17, 2017 4:08 PM

I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.

I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably blended into other terror groups.

rosewood11 , December 17, 2017 2:03 PM

The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."

These Deep State actors in the US have hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their mountains to fall on them when it does.

Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!

You can call me Al -> rosewood11 , December 17, 2017 5:59 PM

I think that is a great comment.

Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.

Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.

Stop Bush and Clinton , December 17, 2017 8:41 PM

After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.

Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.

Nationalist Globalist Oligarch , December 17, 2017 2:54 PM

No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in Russia.

Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.

Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.

Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.

Guy , December 17, 2017 1:07 PM

For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.

http://www.informationclear...

I would highly recommend his latest book also .I am approx half way already and well worth the read.

Superior Europe , December 17, 2017 11:12 AM

New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).

Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th places respectively.

Kjell Hasthi -> Superior Europe , December 17, 2017 1:37 PM

- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden Netherlands and Denmark

When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring junk?

"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."

Superior Europe is employed by Zionist BND?

[Dec 16, 2017] Brexit, Trump, and the Dangers of Global 'Jihad' HuffPost by Ben Railton

For 1995 the book Jihad vs. McWorld was really groundbreaking.
Also the concept of "Neoliberal jihad is valid, but it is better to call it Neoliberal World revolution as it was borrowed from Trotskyism
Notable quotes:
"... Jihad vs. McWorld ..."
"... In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. ..."
"... Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. ..."
"... Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

In his ground-breaking 1995 book Jihad vs. McWorld , political scientist Benjamin Barber posits that the global conflicts of the early 21st century would be driven by two opposing but equally undemocratic forces: neoliberal corporate globalization (which he dubbed "McWorld") and reactionary tribal nationalisms (which he dubbed "Jihad"). Although distinct in many ways, both of these forces, Barber persuasively argues, succeed by denying the possibilities for democratic consensus and action, and so both must be opposed by civic engagement and activism on a broad scale.

In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. Case in pitch-perfect point: the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Yet despite his use of the Arabic word Jihad, Barber is clear that reactionary tribalism is a worldwide phenomenon -- and in 2016 we're seeing particularly striking examples of that tribalism in Western nations such as Great Britain and the United States.

Britain's vote this week in favor of leaving the European Union was driven entirely by such reactionary tribal nationalism. The far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its leader Nigel Farage led the charge in favor of Leave , as exemplified by a recent UKIP poster featuring a photo of Syrian refugees with the caption " Breaking point: the EU has failed us ." Farage and his allies like to point to demographic statistics about how much the UK has changed in the last few decades , and more exactly how the nation's white majority has been somewhat shifted over that time by the arrival of sizeable African and Asian immigrant communities.

It's impossible not to link the UKIP's emphases on such issues of immigration and demography to the presidential campaign of the one prominent U.S. politician who is cheering for the Brexit vote : presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. From his campaign-launching speech about Mexican immigrant "criminals and rapists" to his proposal to ban Muslim immigration and his "Make American Great Again" slogan, Trump has relied on reactionary tribal nationalism at every stage of his campaign, and has received the enthusiastic endorsement of white supremacist and far-right organizations as a result. For such American tribal nationalists, the 1965 Immigration Act is the chief bogeyman, the origin point of continuing demographic shifts that have placed white America in a precarious position.

The only problem with that narrative is that it's entirely inaccurate. What the 1965 Act did was reverse a recent, exclusionary trend in American immigration law and policy, returning the nation to the more inclusive and welcoming stance it had taken throughout the rest of its history. Moreover, while the numbers of Americans from Latin American, Asian, and Muslim cultures have increased in recent decades, all of those communities have been part of o ur national community from its origin points . Which is to say, this right-wing tribal nationalism isn't just opposed to fundamental realities of 21st century American identity -- it also depends on historical and national narratives that are as mythic as they are exclusionary.

Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. Although Trump rallies have featured troubling instances of violence, and although the murderer of British politican Jo Cox was an avowed white supremacist and Leave supporter, the right-wing Islamic extremism of groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram rely far more consistently and centrally on violence and terrorism in support of their worldview and goals. Such specific contexts and nuances are important and shouldn't be elided.

Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. From ISIS to UKIP, Trump to France's Jean-Marie Le Pen, such reactionary forces have become and remain dominant players across the world, influencing local and international politics, economics, and culture. Benjamin Barber called this trend two decades ago, and we would do well to read and remember his analyses -- as well as his call for civic engagement and activism to resist these forces and fight for democracy.

Ben Railton Professor & public scholar of American Studies, Follow Ben Railton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmericanStudier

[Dec 16, 2017] The Real Crimes of Russiagate by Patrick J. Buchanan

In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
"... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
"... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
"... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
"... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
"... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was "no."

As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."

Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full Pinocchio for four days.

And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they want it -- Russiagate.

This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.

Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.

Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S. government designed to damage this president.

Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn.

An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled Israeli intelligence sources and methods.

Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.

Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek. First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.

The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.

Consider the original Russiagate offense.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this "Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?

The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.

If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they publish the fruits of that crime?

Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1?

Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality.

Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted.

Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.

And thus does democracy die in darkness.

Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?

Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?

Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.

People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2017 Creators.com. ← Russia Baiters and Putin Haters Category: Ideology Tags: American Media , Donald Trump , Russia

NoseytheDuke , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 5:27 am GMT

Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.
Priss Factor , Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.

1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

vinteuil , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?
The Alarmist , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians.

Randal , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.

Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

Gg Mo , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

Gg Mo , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for Alzheimers ?

He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc

Andrei Martyanov , Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse. At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.

[Dec 16, 2017] The Trump team definitely colluded with a foreign power Just not the one you think by Aaron Maté

Notable quotes:
"... Published in The Nation on Dec 5, 2017 ..."
"... ccording to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel," ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... * Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network. ..."
"... Published in www.newcoldwar.org (New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond) ..."
Dec 14, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press
Published in The Nation on Dec 5, 2017

Why are the media paying scant attention to Michael Flynn's admissions about Israel?

The indictment of former national-security adviser Michael Flynn on December 1 has confirmed that Donald Trump's inner circle colluded with a foreign power before entering the White House -- just not the foreign power that has been the subject of our national fixation for the past year. To be sure, the jury is still out on Russia, though there are new grounds for questioning the case for a plot tying the Kremlin to Trump Tower. But with Flynn's plea, we can now say for certain that the Trump team did collude -- with Israel.

To recap, Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations with then–Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the period after Trump's November 2016 victory. As Foreign Policy previously reported , Flynn reached out to Kislyak as part of "a vigorous diplomatic bid" to undermine President Obama's decision to allow a December 2016 Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories. The indictment fills in some details.

According to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel,"

The New York Times reported after Flynn's court appearance on Friday. "Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner took the lead in those efforts" -- efforts which failed to change a single vote, including Russia's, which backed the measure in defiance of the Trump-Netanyahu subversion attempt.

In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless.

The next contact between Flynn and Kislyak was more productive. In late December, Obama imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election. A day later, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to request that the Kremlin, according to the plea document, "only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner." Flynn's overture came after a Trump transition colleague told him that the incoming administration "did not want Russia to escalate the situation." By all accounts, Russia complied.

Read also: Turkish Fears

Whatever one thinks about this covert attempt to reduce tensions with a nuclear-armed power, it demonstrates an effort by the Trump transition, as with the Israel vote, to undermine the outgoing administration's policy. Trump critics have seized on that as a violation of the Logan Act, which bars citizens from having unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments in a dispute with the United States. But the Logan Act has seldom been used except as a partisan talking point , not a prosecutable offense. More importantly, there's the question as to whether Flynn's overture on sanctions prove a quid pro quo [a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something].

Notwithstanding the post-election contact with Flynn, not only has Russia failed to gain a reduction in sanctions but its relations with Washington have deteriorated. In early August, Trump signed new sanctions on Russia overwhelmingly approved by Congress. The administration recently presented lawmakers with a list of targets that "reads like a who's who of the Russian defense and intelligence sectors," The New York Times noted. In September, Trump shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and two annexes in New York City and Washington, DC. Just last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced Russia's "malicious tactics" against the West and vowed that sanctions imposed over Russian's role in Ukraine "will remain in place until Russia reverses the actions that triggered them."

Meanwhile, Trump has enlarged NATO over Russia's objections, carried out the "biggest military exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War" on Russia's border, appointed several anti-Russia hawks to key posts, and continues to deliberate over whether to supply Ukraine with a weapons package that Obama himself rejected out of fear it would worsen the country's civil war.

In the latest flare-up, Russia has ordered international media outlets to register as foreign agents in retaliation for the Justice Department first doing so to Washington-based RT America .

It is, of course, possible that all of this is an elaborate ruse to mask the secret, as yet unproven, conspiracy that many insist will lead to Trump's downfall. The fact that Flynn is now a cooperating witness has refueled hopes that this day is finally approaching. After all, why would Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia if he did not have something to hide? And why would Mueller offer him a plea deal if Flynn wasn't offering him a bigger fish to fry? (One plausible motive, as Buzzfeed notes , is that Flynn may have lied to hide his potential Logan Act violation.)

Read also: Trump and the Terrorists Support Le Pen

Only time will tell whether Flynn has something to offer Mueller, or whether Mueller has gotten from him what he can. In the meantime, more than a year after the election, we still have exactly zero evidence of any cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government -- nor, it must be repeated, any evidence to back up U.S. intelligence officials' claims that the Russian government meddled in the election. We do have instances of Trump campaign figures' -- namely, Donald Trump Jr. and low-level adviser George Papadopoulos -- making contact with people that they thought were Russian government intermediaries. But whatever they were told or believed, there is still no proof that their contacts led to an actual Kremlin connection.

What we do have is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Israel to subvert the U.S. government's official position at the United Nations Security Council. Yet reaction to that news has been quite a departure from the standards of Russiagate when it comes to foreign meddling.

The contrast was put on stark display on Sunday, when Jared Kushner appeared with billionaire Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban at the latter's annual forum on U.S.-Israel relations. Saban took a moment to thank Kushner for his role in the subversion effort that Flynn admitted to have undertaken on Israel's behalf. "To be honest with you, as far as I know there's nothing illegal there," Saban told his stage companion. "But I think that this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very much."

For all of the fears of Russian oligarchs' having influence over Trump, the comment from this American oligarch reveals a great deal about who really influences practically everyone in Washington, Republican or Democrat. Saban was not a Trump donor. He is, in fact, Bill and Hillary Clinton's top all-time financial supporter, to the tune of more than $25 million ; a benefactor whose generosity has helped build not just the Clinton Library but also the Democratic National Committee's headquarters.

Read also: The real Marine Le Pen: Α Warrior against Islam, like the "Fake pacifist" Trump?

But there has been no outrage from democracy-defending #Resistance stalwarts over Saban's comments (and the Israeli subversion effort he endorsed). The same for news of Kushner's failure to disclose his leadership of a group that funded the illegal Israeli settlements that he tried to protect at the United Nations. And now we await to see how those who agonize over foreign influence on Trump will respond to his reported plans to move the American embassy to Jerusalem -- "a decision that would break with decades of U.S. policy and could fuel violence in the Middle East," as Haaretz notes .

It is unlikely that Trump will be challenged on Israel, because his approach is harmonic with a bipartisan consensus cemented in large part by the financial contributions of billionaires like Saban and his Republican pro-Israeli government counterpart, Sheldon Adelson. Hence, there are no editorials or opinion pieces denouncing Israel's ' Plot Against America ' or ' War on America ', or warnings that ' Odds Are, Israel Owns Trump ', or explorations of ' What Israel Did to Control the American Mind '. Likewise, there will be no new groups forming dubbed the ' Committee to Investigate Israel ' or the ' Tel Aviv Project '. In fact it is more than likely that, going forward, the media will give Israelgate the same treatment as cable's top Russiagate sleuth, MSNBC 's Rachel Maddow, gave during her exhaustive Flynn coverage so far, which is to not even mention it.

This weekend furnished us with another important contrast. Flynn's indictment was followed hours later by the passage of the Senate Republican tax bill, which stands to be one of the largest upward transfers of wealth in U.S. history. If protecting democracy is our goal, we may want to tune out the Russia-obsessed pundits and look closer to home.

* Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network.

Published in www.newcoldwar.org
(New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond)

[Dec 15, 2017] Sic Semper Tyrannis Watergate Deja Vu and Fake News by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians. That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.

... ... ...

Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.

How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.

Publius Tacitus , 05 December 2017 at 11:52 PM
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
EEngineer said in reply to David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 01:12 AM

How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?

There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.

walrus , 06 December 2017 at 01:49 AM
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT.
sbjonez , 06 December 2017 at 02:36 AM
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI 'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
Dr. George W. Oprisko , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 AM
As it happens the FBI and most probably the others were created by executive order.

Perhaps it's time to end them by executive order.......

INDY

Eric Newhill said in reply to Publius Tacitus ... , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 AM
PT,
I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).

When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies, socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'état is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts, immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.

This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.

The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.

If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.

Peter Reichard , 06 December 2017 at 05:21 AM
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned, we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
English Outsider -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 December 2017 at 05:45 AM
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?

I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality - politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?

You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once.

JMH said in reply to David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 07:29 AM
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality. ... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure into power.[6]"-wiki

Bernie can be Lasalle.

Patrick Armstrong , 06 December 2017 at 07:55 AM
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please
Martin Oline , 06 December 2017 at 08:02 AM
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:

Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.

Ken Roberts , 06 December 2017 at 08:30 AM
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated".

That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved. Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects of this model:

"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Best wishes,
kr

Greco , 06 December 2017 at 08:56 AM
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500 This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
jdledell , 06 December 2017 at 10:04 AM
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That is as it should be.

Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair in War and politics".

Fred -> David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 10:20 AM
David,

He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.

Publius Tacitus -> sbjonez... , 06 December 2017 at 10:35 AM
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
rjj said in reply to JMH... , 06 December 2017 at 11:19 AM
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference for the classic method of donning trousers.

OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):

Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from it. ....

Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....

The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse. ....

His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .

https://archive.org/details/firebrandofbolsh00radz

As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.

DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and [guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.

walter , 06 December 2017 at 12:06 PM
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual" in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced or eliminated.

Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government.

I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media.

Sid Finster , 06 December 2017 at 12:16 PM
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.

I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians? Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?

If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his puppet?

Asking for a friend.

Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.

Sid Finster said in reply to English Outsider ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:18 PM
The difference is that the establishment/Deep State/Borg/whatever you want to call it approves of Steele's activities.
Dr. Puck said in reply to Dr. George W. Oprisko ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:27 PM
FYI History of the FBI. www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history
Sylvia 1 , 06 December 2017 at 12:48 PM
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.

What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.

Eric Newhill , 06 December 2017 at 12:51 PM
PT,

Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.

Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though.

Peter VE said in reply to Sylvia 1... , 06 December 2017 at 05:05 PM
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful about today's information.
Cvillereader said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 06 December 2017 at 06:54 PM
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
blue peacock , 07 December 2017 at 12:18 AM
Publius Tacitus
The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

How can this conspiracy be investigated? Who could do it? Clearly not anyone from the DoJ, FBI, CIA and NSA as they are fully compromised.

JamesT -> Cvillereader... , 07 December 2017 at 12:48 AM
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
Imagine , 07 December 2017 at 12:50 AM
Real News: Outstanding official independent post-mortem of Charlottesville. Includes maneuver tactics, I think y'all will like it.

http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=59615

AK said in reply to English Outsider ... , 07 December 2017 at 04:06 AM
English Outsider,

"Any idea why?"

He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread.

One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.

Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily - " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "

They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.

AK said in reply to Richardstevenhack ... , 07 December 2017 at 04:23 AM
Richardstevenhack,

" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.

You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously, because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.

[Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

Highly recommended!
Here you have it – a self-confession from the highest D.C. officials, that "democracy promotion = meddling in the elections"! Oh, but that's not all:
Notable quotes:
"... "To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon, the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic politics. ..."
"... After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials told Moscow there would be no deal. ..."
"... "We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions." ..."
"... Here you have it – a self-confession from the highest D.C. officials, that "democracy promotion = meddling in the elections"! Oh, but that's not all: ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , December 10, 2017 at 5:59 pm

C for Chutzpah.

ButtFeed: How Secret Talks With Russia to Prevent Election Meddling Collapsed

With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States, US officials tell BuzzFeed News. The Trump administration said no.

"To test the possibility of a mutual agreement, Putin dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Washington for a July 17 meeting with Under Secretary Tom Shannon, the No. 3 official at the State Department. The official US account of the meeting offered only a bland summary of conversations on "areas of mutual concern." But three US administration officials, including one inside the meeting, said Ryabkov handed over a document containing a bold proposal: A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other's domestic politics.

After examining the proposal, which has not previously been reported, US officials told Moscow there would be no deal.

"We said 'thank you very much but now is not the time for this,'" said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions."

Here you have it – a self-confession from the highest D.C. officials, that "democracy promotion = meddling in the elections"! Oh, but that's not all:

[Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

Highly recommended!
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.

Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.

The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War.

According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.

Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.

However, the project took an unexpected turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.

So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.

Blocked Premiere

Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.

Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."

As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The Washington Post reported.

That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.

By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son.

But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.

There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past.

Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."

In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven forbid!

One-Time Showing

So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.

Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.

After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act."

The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic. But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.

The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.

"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."

The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you might read in a totalitarian society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for saying something that almost no one heard.

New Paradigm

The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives on sensitive geopolitical issues.

Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."

First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.

In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.

From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the White House.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Joseph A. Haran, Jr. , July 13, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.

Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this problem before.

ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm

Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

Any link?? I am willing to buy it.

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm

This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet, search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"

https://my.mail.ru/bk/n-osetrova/video/71/18682.html?time=155&from=videoplayer

I'll keep looking for the film with translation into some other language.

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm

Sorry, the Russian text did not appear. Try with latin alphabet: Film Andreia Nekrasova "Zakon Magnitskogo. Za kulisami"

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d1ylakLMNU

This is the same dubbed version, on youtube.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.

incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Well stated.

Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Mr. Parry,

Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.

Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?

I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant.

Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it.

Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.

Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life as we know it, is appalling.

Anna , July 13, 2017 at 5:54 pm

"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.

Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm

Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.

Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't like get elected

Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:31 am

Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch, the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks, it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.

orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational discussion here.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm

Dear orwell

re Anna

Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish Zionist crowd in the US.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am

orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?

Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker just went up for taking on these two wackos.

Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm

The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless I shell out some unknown amount of money.

If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.

Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm

I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information. Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?

orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:48 pm

The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.

Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm

Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm

Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and strength.

BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:12 pm

Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am

BannanaBoat – that too!

Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm

This is interesting:

"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank! for which he was paid $500,000.

"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.

Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder, a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance officials, among others, participated in the fraud."

The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia relations would suffer as a result."

More: http://observer.com/2017/07/natalia-veselnitskaya-hillary-clinton-magnitsky-act/

Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Very interesting, Zim.

Bart in Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm

"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?

Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl clutching.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm

WOW..excellent reporting.

BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:35 pm

nice backgrounder for an ever evolving story censorship is censorship by any other name!

BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:38 pm

afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am

Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view, as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm

"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.

Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.

"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.

'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of 'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'

'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.

'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.

"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's statements appear factually sound."

Throwing a Curveball at 'Intelligence Community Consensus' on Russia By Scott Ritter http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC, as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders aren't going to listen them?

Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain historical events you've told us about.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.

John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.

I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.

Roger Annis , July 13, 2017 at 4:02 pm

A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in Parliament.

A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/when-it-comes-to-magnitsky-laws-its-clear-what-russia-is-looking-for/article35678618/

John-Albert Eadie , July 13, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger, with a link to this article.

Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm

Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm

"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.

ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm

Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not).

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm

ToivoS,

thank you for this background information.

My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented as socialist instead of social democratic ones.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm

Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.

I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them.

Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm

backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.

In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt, and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.

Bruce Walker , July 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm

I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.

I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You all have a nice Peacefull day

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am

Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."

No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized (sarc)!

But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online). Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that it was in the Russian language. LOL

Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."

Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here without going back in time for more fun!

I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up.

Keep smiling, Joe.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am

Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up. Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.

Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")

Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am

Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.

A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy, confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.

Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.

And now the disclaimer.

Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving , caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm

backwardsevolution,

thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading "Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.

The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.

With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.

On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne (Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.

Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am

Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others are the creative inventors.

Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks that way.

Thanks, Joe.

Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am

Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.

During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to his titles. The office became hereditary.

When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony. Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.

When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son, Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.

Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8 when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.

When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.

Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:45 am

The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies (never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.

Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm

I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.

For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.

backwardsevolution,

in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.

Miranda Keefe,

I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.

Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz ). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants / money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm

History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nppst

History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal position of the church in the

Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable art work also.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am

Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings, gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with it?

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm

@ backwards

" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'

imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside some loot for themselves.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.

Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am

An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some such belief.

Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm

Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia, the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia and China.

mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know .. (Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table? Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your not, what compromise with you?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute, but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?

Always like reading your comments mike K Joe

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Joe,

when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm

This is where the Two Joe's are alike.

mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm

I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now, those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Yep

BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm

Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of the nightmare USA society has become.

ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm

Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!

John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm

If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be a top historian as well as a top journalist.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm

"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains a cherished value."

A Response to William Browder
By Rachel Bauman
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/response-william-browder-16654

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:16 pm

William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:19 pm

"never driven by the money"
https://www.thejc.com/culture/books/be-careful-of-putin-he-is-a-true-enemy-of-jews-1.61745

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:50 am

Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!

"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by lobbying it.

This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.

"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what the best constellation of players will be on this.

"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting options, but I'm not going to name any names."

What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am

Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case is the margin of error.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm

"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:15 am

Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As the article says, he leaves a lot out.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm

In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University – The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University – Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.

Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper

The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:

"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632989

In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts, Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am

What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.

It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel, almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.

Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.

Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am

" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "

The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls, that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am

Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay, enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm

Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?

I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya. My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.

The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.

Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?

F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am

I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election. Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under control.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am

It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.

I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.

When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger .she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.

I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.

Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.

Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

Joe

Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am

"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."

Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am

The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm

JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm

I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm

You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.

Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:

"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives "play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever. The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am

Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

yessir, love it

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am

Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers would still be most scary.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am

Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=6180

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW

United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,

HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,

THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.

Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification

Country: United States of America
Language: English

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."

A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there. That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.

Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has done a lot of good.

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

USA justice for Oilygarchs; Ignore capital crimes and mass destruction ; concentrate on entertaining shenanigans.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 11:39 pm

If Trump wants to survive he better let go of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Lets start here:

Trump's personal attorneys are reportedly fed up with Jared Kushner
http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-trump-lawyers-donald-jr-emails-2017-7

Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner "as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign

Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.

Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?

Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar

And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?

Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/03/sergei-gorkov-russian-banker-jared-kushner

The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals." Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.

Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before
http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his father-in-law's

The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.

At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8 billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start. On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall, a hotel and high-priced condominiums"

Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange for giving them something from the Trump WH.

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:52 am

The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has gone to the very very very DARK side.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol

Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am

What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today, and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.

Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election. Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information! They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures, not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.

So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative: that has been shown to be true over and over again.

This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism, but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.

Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am

Chris – good post. Thanks.

mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am

Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual post.

Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am

It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader". http://www.billbrowder.com/bio

HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am

One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S. politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.

Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am

With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate' I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions, that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making. Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story' and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed it appears

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 11:00 am

HEAR -- HEAR -- Excellent --

Zachary Smith , July 14, 2017 at 11:04 am

I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.

Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no alternative.

How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy? Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.

Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am

Spot on.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white), but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?

It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Nice comment.

None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of the people involved in a issue or story.

We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am

I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company, a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks, just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written off with the "no evidence" argument.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm

God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.

I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting the facts.

The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.

The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".

Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.

Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism. Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime and terrorism in Syria.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am

Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm

When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".

exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.

mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm

I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless. If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what we must counter to wake people up.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds to a rebuttal.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am

Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.

The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed blog post in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?

Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe

PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 5:14 pm

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her to win.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm

Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:

"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr. said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting. Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 10:27 pm

Thanks!

exiled off mainstreet , July 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.

Mike , July 14, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Pretty interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russia-bill-browder-testify-senate-links-natalia-veselnitskaya-steele-dossier-a7840061.html

Big Tim , July 15, 2017 at 12:31 am

"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"

Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am

Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.

Anna , July 15, 2017 at 10:25 am

"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.

P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist. Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity. As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold war.

Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!

MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS

Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA

Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 12:50 pm

CN article on 911 truthers:

https://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

Finnish wonderer , July 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm

Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but still finished his documentary.

Mark Dankof , July 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm

The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American Republic is dead.

Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm

Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about the censorship. Sad.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

Note "allegations that are unsupported by facts".

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/19/a-reminder-about-comment-rules-2/

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:

From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm

My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc). I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.

Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.

Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am

You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm

Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.

"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.

Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".

Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm

I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm

The cowardly claim of "censorship".

The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".

No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.

Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.

dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

torrent for the film?

Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am

Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-04-04%20CEG%20to%20DHS%20(Akhmetshin%20Information)%20with%20attachment.pdf

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.

But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.

It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William Browder.

After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".

Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.

In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.

Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.

David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not. Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".

My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.

Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.

And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.

Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.

I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.

David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm

It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper" as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day if you just read it.

David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican) to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm

It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility" and "standing" of William Browder.

Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and slurs against RP.

Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.

Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.

But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.

David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm

I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.

Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during a Perplexing situation.

This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.

The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton, regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.

This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information is share with other People.

This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton Foundation.

We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that Crime.

The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.

There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.

We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.

This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.

We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.

There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump, then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans, because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.

There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.

We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.

There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.

These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime, or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.

There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District, then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.

There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.

There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President, and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,

There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.

MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/10/trumps-inner-circle-met-with-no-ordinary-russian-lawyer/

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:

"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.

"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to flourish in Israel.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Why was Bharara fired?

Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

Ain't gonna happen.

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case, days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors. Hmmmm.

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm

By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic Party political consultant.

From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington, Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.

Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/

Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune. Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.

Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".

Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Very interesting.

[Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

Highly recommended!
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.facebook.com

The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.

The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.

The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.

Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.

In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.

I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)

Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York, making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.

I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.

Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?

Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling, I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because, in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].

Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?

Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life. The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth. I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this, you are also under the gun.

Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace it back as best we can.

Thomas Drake: In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.

From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.

The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth, they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."

Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?

Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?

I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.

Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders.

Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.

Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.

Thomas Drake: The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."

Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.

What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom . You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net .

orwell

"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.

exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag.

Jerry Alatalo , December 7, 2017 at 3:34 pm

It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!

jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm

The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html ).

This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.

mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm

How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in!

john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am

Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.

fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm

Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern. Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.

The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I submit the actions and intentions of those who govern that are revealed and discussed in this article https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/07/russia-gates-reach-into-journalism/ should be among the list of impels that support the next declaration.

Al Pinto , December 7, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and further advance it by silencing the independent media.

Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.

https://usawatchdog.com/mother-of-all-bubbles-too-big-to-pop-peter-schiff/

mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.

john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am

Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief.

Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.

One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US.

Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am

In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.

Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight with Karma.

[Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

Highly recommended!
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente) with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of 'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black Americans by law enforcement."

In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.

"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."

Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will end."

The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.

Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms. But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to Facebook's data , 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not exactly a viral smash.

Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts targeted "animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed " Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According to its " deliberately broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part, documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.

However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping 82 percent of Democrats that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the attacks of 9/11 . And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.

As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities. Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.

So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?

Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship

A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."

Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force.

Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.

Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.

Before Congress, a String of Deceptions

Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate, helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.

In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."

Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.

The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda, the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was named by Spanish investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.

Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and a look at his single tweet promoting the article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political divisions."

Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast transcript of his testimony) was a single link to an RT article that factually documented a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets, from the Houston Chronicle to the Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual events.

Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.

In the articles cited by Watts during his testimony, neither RT nor Sputnik made any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually every major Turkish news organization ( here , here , here and here ). What's more, the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed the severity of the event, citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover." This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.

Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.

Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.

Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court

During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures" to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.

Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.

The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal.

The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.

In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record.

When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent.

When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression. He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for defamation and libel.

Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.

The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.

FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists

Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."

Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a similar characterization of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge."

FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization described by journalists Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, " The Geography of Intellect ," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising." Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational thought."

While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda. By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."

Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy. Today, he is remembered fondly on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.

The Paranoid Style

This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling. Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been mysteriously scrubbed from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable claims about Russian influence.

While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said, claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."

"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or offer any examples.

"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."

It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues. He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."

According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely unexamined.

Domestic Agent of Influence

"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."

By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."

Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have triggered congressional hearings.

Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation, this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.

In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and consular raids to arbitrary crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.

It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.

In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.

Read part two here .

Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of " Goliath ," " Republican Gomorrah ," and " The 51 Day War ." He is the co-host of the podcast, Moderate Rebels . Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal .

Related Articles

[Dec 09, 2017] The Rot Of American Party Elites ( the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons )

Actually it is rot of the US neocon elite.
Notable quotes:
"... Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it. This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed to cross them if you want to stay on the inside. ..."
"... neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon. ..."
"... Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

And for that matter, let us recall that it was the best and brightest of the Republican Party's defense and national security elite that led the nation into its worst foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. Did you see Ken Burns's recent Vietnam documentary? Did you see Errol Morris's fantastic documentary The Fog of War , about Robert McNamara and Vietnam? Those were Democratic Party elites, but the most important fact is that they were American elites, just as the Republican elites that led us into Iraq. And it was American elites -- Republican and Democrat -- that led us into the 2008 economic crash, beginning with the Clinton-era deregulation of Wall Street, continued through the George W. Bush era.

My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites (who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most ardent supporters let him get away with it. This tax bill, which he embraces, gives lie to any substantive claim that Trump is a populist.

... ... ...

Yes, the GOP is putrefying. So is the Democratic Party (as Edsall's analysis reveals). The rot began long before Donald Trump showed up on the political scene. He is both symptom and catalyst, but he didn't start the rot.

Noah172 December 8, 2017 at 11:56 am

He's absolutely right, of course, and the Republicans who voted for that unpopular (see here and here), help-the-rich, deficit-exploding tax bill

Oh, get off it. The bill greatly expands the standard deduction, which reduces the value of all itemized deductions (itemized deductions help the wealthy). It reduces the mortgage interest and SALT deductions, which subsidize rich New Yorkers and Californians (the real reason Democrats hate this bill). It increases the child credit (maybe not enough, but some). A number of analyses show that it will give a modest post-tax income boost across the income spectrum. As for the estate tax thing, remember that heirs pay capital gains and other taxes (e.g. local property) on their inherited assets; tweaking the cost-basis people calculate on inherited assets (I would set it to zero if I were king) could get the feds the same revenue as an estate tax.

It is not a perfect or even that great of a bill, but stop robotically repeating every apocalyptic denunciation of it (literally apocalyptic: Nancy Pelosi said the bill is "Armageddon" and "the end of the world"; and others are screaming that the bill will murder people).

Noah172 , , December 8, 2017 at 11:58 am
NFR: On tax policy and economics, he's governing like a standard-issue plutocratic Republican

Not on trade. Not on immigration. Pay attention.

On foreign policy, he's reducing American power abroad and making war more likely

Have you gone back to neoconservatism?

[NFR: Please. It delights me to think of the yoga-like contortions you're having to do to justify your man's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. -- RD]

Ben H , , December 8, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it. This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed to cross them if you want to stay on the inside.

Potentially influential people can't talk about these guys because if you do you lose your job. This happens even now, there was a case within the last couple of months that comes to mind.

Even though this group's plans have proceed disastrous time after time, these people are beyond criticism and never suffer any consequences when their actions lead to real world death and destruction.

[NFR: But that's just it -- neoconservatism *was* the conservative establishment, until Trump came along. -- RD]

Ben H , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:37 pm
No, neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon.

Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure.

Kent , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:44 pm
"More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm politically homeless."

Sheepishly raises hand. I was always a Republican not because of any of a thousand issues, but because I believed Republicans knew how to run an efficient, financially prudent government. It was the party of conservative values like work and integrity.

Democrats were the party of budget deficits, handouts, war and favored constituencies. The Republicans have become the Democrats of old, just tweaking who gets the handouts.

GWB's second term was the first time I ever voted for a democrats across the line. Not because I care about their policies (they're basically Republican anyway), but just because its the only way I have to slap the GOP in my small way.

The GOP has become the party of radical incompetence. An embarrassment. I see little difference between Trump and Hillary. And most Republicans I know think there is an ocean between them. That's how small their world has become.

DBN , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:57 pm
The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive -- moral, intellectual, political and reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm politically homeless."

Cry me a river. A lot of Americans have felt this way way for decades. Pew Research Center polling has consistently shown that the largest group of Americans tilts socially to the right but economically to the left. There has not been a party since FDRs Democrats that felt like a home for these people.

Given that we have a two-party system, and that's unlikely to change, I would rather that at least one party begin represent a significant portion of the population again.

[Dec 08, 2017] Did the FBI, CIA and NSA conspired to destroy Donald Trump?

Notable quotes:
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Publius Tacitus -> sbjonez... , 06 December 2017 at 10:35 AM

You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.

Sylvia 1 , 06 December 2017 at 12:48 PM

This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.

What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.

blue peacock , 07 December 2017 at 12:18 AM
Publius Tacitus
The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

How can this conspiracy be investigated? Who could do it? Clearly not anyone from the DoJ, FBI, CIA and NSA as they are fully compromised.

[Dec 08, 2017] What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.

Notable quotes:
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

WJ , 05 December 2017 at 08:16 PM

Sir,

What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.

He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);

he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.

The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.

He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.

turcopolier , 05 December 2017 at 09:36 PM
WJ

I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl

fanto said in reply to WJ... , 05 December 2017 at 10:51 PM
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him. As you point out, ´internet is not your friend´ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings. Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish ?)
The Twisted Genius -> WJ... , 05 December 2017 at 11:27 PM
WJ,

Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working "in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years after retiring? It's just force of habit.

I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server file in light of this.

rjj said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:20 PM
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous - how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?

[Dec 07, 2017] MoA - Slapstick In Kiev

Dec 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Den Lille Abe | Dec 5, 2017 3:05:41 PM | 6

Ukraine has become a tragical farce, is such a paradox exists.
I doubt anybody can dissect who finances Saakashvili. To me he seems to be anothe proxy, Timoshenko ?
The Ukranian people are the victims here, untold billions being stolen from the people, a lethargic civil war, that could have been avoided...
What beggars belief really is that some Ukranian politicians held the belief that they could join NATO and Sevastopol become a NATO base.. That is just alternate reality, and it must be clear to anyone that it was a no-go. There is a reason Finland is not part of NATO, even though they are fiercely independent.
The Ukrainian politicians should have taken lessons in "Real-Politik" from Willy Brandt.
pB | Dec 5, 2017 3:23:48 PM | 7
Sorry, im against all the antirussian hysteria, but the idea that shakavili is now being paid by the russians to stir up trouble is just to delicious an irony, not to believe
Daniel | Dec 5, 2017 3:24:25 PM | 8
Saakashvili was the President of Georgia who shelled and invaded South Ossetia back in 2012. This led to the "Russo-Georgian War" when Russia came to the assistance of the people of South Ossetia.

Faux Newz had an interesting moment when they interviewed a young American girl who had recently fled the war. They assumed she was onboard the Russophobia train, but she and her aunt insisted that Saakashvili was the aggressor and Russia had come to their rescue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCqIaINP-bE

So, I would doubt that Saakashvili is supported by Russia. It's not impossible since RealPolitiks can make for very strange bedfellows. Saakashvili is a fugitive in two countries right now, and could be a useful tool for further delegitimizing the Ukrainian putsch regime.

But history and contexts matters.

James | Dec 5, 2017 3:37:25 PM | 9
I think it is Yulia Tymoshenko behind Saakashvili
She seems to be the only oligarch not making out like a bandit plundering Ukraine!!! This time round!!!

I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people.
At the end of the Soviet Union they had the most potential, but for some reason they seem to have too many corrupt and ideologically ( neo Nazi) driven politicians. A recipe for conflict in a country made up of bits and pieces of other countries with Greeks, Hungarians, Jews, Russians, poles and other groups with their own cultures and identities. The Soviet Union could keep a lid on all this as it was a large multi- ethnic space, but Ukraine seeking a single identity is causing the country to split

Saakashvili is a clown and is not the saviour they need. But he could force the country to declare early elections - then Tymoshenko will reveal herself

Piotr Berman | Dec 5, 2017 3:55:38 PM | 10
From what I recall about Saakashvili entering illegally Ukraine from Poland, he was helped by the supporters of Timoshenko party.

Concerning the "clownish character", he does not seem to stand out from Ukrainian norm. There are tons of reasons for popular discontent, and a considerable surplus of leaders who want to channel that discontent, and as followers of American political scene know, it helps to be "colorful" (note to HRC: some people are natural in that respect, and some, including those that you can see in your bathroom, are anything but).

Support for Batkivshchina, the political party of Timoshenko, was in high single digits, and anti-corruption credibility could lift it a bit. Timoshenko herself oscillated between "Russian stooge" and ultra-nationalist, and had some period as a tycoon with shady deals (with Gasprom). She is also a former prime minister with passable tenure, and, given her age, has pretty hair and face. Energetic Misha can complement her nicely.

Kalen | Dec 5, 2017 4:09:45 PM | 13
Saakashvilli was and is American puppet in Ukraine and at home in Georgia and hence he was not blown up like those who do not have explicitly protection from US embassy in the maddening frenzy of collapsing political and moral system in Ukraine spurring brutal murder spree among warring oligarchic mafia fighting for IMF loot.

Now even authentic Ukrainian Nazis are fed up with Poroshenko the pig, and want him dead due to him being an western agent of as they put it moral decay and culture anihilatiing globalism and that include promotion of LGBT mafia he belongs himself. A war between Nazi grass roots in the west of Ukraine as well as moderate Russian ethnic conservatives in Donbass area against US/NATO trained and equipped SBU run Kiev regime continues demonstrated by sheer terror brutality and murder as well as comical episodes like that while collapse of quite developed civil society continues into barbarism under US plans as it happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Yemen and Ukraine.

Jen | Dec 5, 2017 5:01:01 PM | 16
Could Mikhail Khodorkovsky be the "Russian middleman" financing the antics of Saakashvili and his supporters?

Tymoshenko may be paying Saakashvili and his supporters but this would not work for her long-term, in that if she became President, Saakashvili would feel entitled to demand a senior position in her government and he might become a thorn in her side. He could easily switch sides if she denies him a position and work to undermine her. So no, I don't think Tymoshenko would be paying him.

More likely someone or a government outside Ukraine who could play Poroshenko, Tymoshenko or another ambitious oligarch politician off against one other, who would use Saakashvili and his fan base as tools to push Ukrainian politics this way and that, and who has the money to do so, is paying Saakashvili.

psychohistorian | Dec 5, 2017 5:40:59 PM | 17
I am beginning to think that the strategy is to have enough geo-political balls in the air that obscure and suck focus from the real shit going on so no global consensus can emerge to stop the insanity.

And it seems to be working for the moment as it has for the past couple of centuries of rule by the private finance elite.

FB | Dec 5, 2017 6:05:08 PM | 20
Well...that is one pretty good sketch of pure slapstick...had me in stitches for a while...

The problem with Ukraine is simple...the US interference since day one...

Think Russia under Yeltsin...but which never got fixed...

Ukraine has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...the difference between the 'Ukrainian' language and Russian is so superficial as to be something like the difference between say American and Australian English...

...kind of like 'Serbian' and 'Croatian'...

Belarus is an example of a stable post-Soviet society that knows well it doesn't belong in this Frankenstein 'Europe' of today...

The Orange Revolution was brought on by the usual suspects...ie US and its Euro proxies...and it failed miserably...

In the next election the people brought Yanukovich back...not to mention that he had won that disputed election in 2004 anyway...

Then in 2014...the crazy neocons of the Kagan clan went for the gusto...a full-blown putch...with paid snipers and blackwater mercenaries...

And so the people of Ukraine are sliding into a European version of Yemen...

Ukraine inherited a large part of the Soviet military industrial capacity after 1991...including the crucial human expertise in very high tech sectors like jet and rocket engines...airframes...and much more...

It was a no-brainer that these industries and the educational system underpinning them could be a springboard for mutually beneficial economic integration with Russia...think of Airbus and its French, German and other European partners...

Russia is today a medium-income country with a per capita GDP [PPP] on a par with EU member Greece and not far behind Italy and Spain...

For the ordinary person Russia is a paradise compared to Ukraine...with three times higher income...

We find Ukraine trailing countries like Namibia, El Salvador and Morocco...

Even the Eastern European countries like Czech, Poland and Hungary are still far from the income levels of the major Western European countries...relatively speaking they have not improved their lot from the Soviet days...

Only now all their industries are foreign-owned...bought for pennies on the dollar...they pay high prices for second-class food...

And where they had free university education that was probably second to none in quality...now they pay through the nose...

Even in the Czech Republic which is the highest income country of the former eastern bloc...many people feel that things have not improved in the last 25 years...

Have living standards in Eastern Europe decreased after Communism?

The fall has been greatest for Ukraine...and certainly this can be traced back to the constant tugging of the West...not to say outright interference on a criminal level...

Even Germany has long since realized that it needs Russia and that Russia is good for German business...so how is it that Russia's immediate neighbors...many of which were part of Russia for centuries...think that they can now burn all bridges...?

It is insane...that's the kind of change only a neocon can believe in...

Daniel | Dec 5, 2017 6:16:46 PM | 21
psychohistorian @17

That's pretty much my take. We are constantly bombarded by "Breaking News" events that amount to an endless parade of squirrels for us to chase, while real stuff is going on largely under the radar.

I don't know how deep the connections of that ancient financial elite really go. I think everyone here agrees that they own/control both party flavors in the US, though some still want to believe that Trump is somehow breaking that mold (a thesis I find completely unsubstantiated except as portrayed in the Reality TV Show of political theater).

But, are Russia or China really somewhat independent competitors, or is even that level of seeming conflict really just manufactured diversion? When I see IMF backing for both of those countries, I have to wonder just how much BRIC, One Road, etc. are sincere resistance to the Globalists.

Was Hitler really just a tool for the banksters? Did the Bolsheviks really hijack the Russian Revolution at the behest of the global banksters?

Is resistance really futile, or are we led to believe the Globalists are much more powerful than they really are, and their Empire is really just a house of cards that we, the people could topple easily with mass strikes and boycotts, combined with establishing our own means of providing the basic necessities to survive the Revolution?

I see large numbers of Honduran police have publicly refused to follow regime orders against their fellow citizens. Every successful revolution has followed from significant numbers of the enforcers of the Elite refusing orders and joining with the people.

pantaraxia | Dec 5, 2017 6:54:50 PM | 22
Saakashvili's involvement in Ukraine goes deeper than his purported anti-corruption campaign. It seems he was one of the players behind the Maidan massacre, while being aligned with that scumbag zionist-Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoisky. (see below)

Another False Flag Terror ADMISSION: Snipers In the Ukraine "Protests"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-17/another-false-flag-terror-admission-snipers-ukraine-%E2%80%9Cprotests%E2%80%9D

Italy's 11th largest newspaper – Il Giornale – reported on an admission by several of the snipers

Revazishvilli's confessions and two other Georgians reveal a different and disconcerting truth. Revazishvilli and his two companions are a former member of the security services of former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and two former militants of his party."

Coincidentally (?) Georgian mercenaries were also a significant component of Kolomoisky's private army which committed some of the worst atrocities and repeatedly undermined any attempts to establish a ceasefire. Kolomoisky was forced to back down by the U.S. from his confrontational stance with Valtzman (Poroshenko) over the division of spoils from the systematic looting of the Ukraine. His ouster as Governor of Dnipropetrovsk and subsequent marginalization from the 'spoils of the victors' by Poroshenko likely produced one very unhappy customer. Kolomoisky, given his history and past actions, does not seem to be the type of character who would take this lying down.(see following article) His ties to Saakashvili are quite extensive prior to the rift over Odessa (staged or backstabbing?)

NATO, MH17, Mossad and Kolomoisky: Beware the 'Chameleon'
https://www.sott.net/article/282898-NATO-MH17-Mossad-and-Kolomoisky-Beware-the-Chameleon

Some of the Georgians who serve in Kolomoisky's Army have reportedly been trained in the use of BUK missile systems previously sold by Ukraine to Georgia under the presidency of Mikheil Saakashvili. Kolomoisky has utilized ex-President Saakashvili's "consulting services" in Dnipropetrovsk in the military and political campaign against the breakaway people's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

pantaraxia | Dec 5, 2017 7:30:55 PM | 23

@20 FB

"The problem with Ukraine is simple...the US interference since day one "

Its not quite that simple. The problem with Ukraine is that it has become a mafia state run by organized crime with some three dozen oligarchs controlling approximately 85% of the economy.
President Kuchma's regime institutionalized the organized crime element in the government in a manner similar to Yeltsin's action in Russia. The fact that the U.S. government aligned itself with one oligarchic faction came subsequent to this.

elsi | Dec 5, 2017 7:32:27 PM | 24
I agree with some here who seem to suggest that this is no more than smoke and mirrors, since the real thing, which is no other than spreading and consolidation of fascism throughout Europe and the world, is happening behind the scenes....While you laugh at Saakashvili, nobody thinks of Parubyi....

"Nazism in Europe is precisely NATO"

http://www.voltairenet.org/article196854.html

"(...)So this is Andriy Parubiy who, as the President of the Ukrainian Parliament (a position conferred on him in April 2016 for his democratic achievements), was received on 5 June at Montecitorio by the President of the House, Laura Boldrini. "Italy - emphasized President Boldrini - has always condemned the illegal action that took place to the detriment of the Ukrainian territory". Thus she has gobbled up the Nato version according to which it was Russia that had illegally annexed Crimea, a version that fails to take into account that the Russians of Crimea chose to break away from Ukraine and to re-enter Russia - a decision taken to pre-empt an attack, just like the decision taken by the Russians of Donbass, by Neo Nazi battalions and Kiev's other forces.

The cordial conversation was concluded by signing a memorandum of understanding that "further strengthens parliamentary cooperation between the two assemblies, both at the political and administrative level".

Thus it strengthens cooperation between the Italian Republic, born out of the Resistance against Nazi-fascism, and a regime that created in Ukraine a situation analogous to that which brought into being the fascism of the 1920s and Nazism in the 1930s. The Azov battalion, whose Nazi signature is represented by the emblem inspired by the SS Das Reich emblem, has been incorporated into the National Guard, transformed into a regular military unit and promoted to the rank of a regiment for special operations.

Then it was supplied with armoured transport and artillery. With other Neo-Nazi formations, transformed into regular units, it is trained by US instructors from the 173a Air Transport division, transferred from Vicenza to Ukraine, flanked by others from Nato.

The Ukraine of Kiev has thus become the "nursery" for born-again Nazism right in the heart of Europe. Neo-Nazis flow into Kiev from all over Europe, including Italy. After being trained and tested out in military action against the Russians of Ukraine in Donbass, they have been made to return to their countries. Now it is left to Nato to rejuvenate the ranks of Gladio."


fudmier | Dec 5, 2017 8:17:56 PM | 25
13,18, and 19 may be correct.. I am no expert, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili (mentions):
IIR (Intnl Law) TSNU-Kyiv (Ukraine, 1992) Poroshenko discovered. HRTs officer after Pres Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Georgia)deposed; (US State Dept(Ed Muskie Graduate Fellowship mentioned?). Columbia Law School, LLm 1994; GW Univ Law School; diploma Intl Institute of HR, Strasbourg, France. Check wikipedia for details.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/War_criminal_Mikhail_Saakashvili_officially_back_in_Ukraine/60768/0/38/38/Y/M.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgias-saakashvili-appointed-aide-ukraine-leader-095756606.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0KqlQkmZs


psychohistorian | Dec 5, 2017 8:18:33 PM | 26
@ Daniel who engaged me with contextual musings, pantaraxia who writes that the US is behind one of the oligarchs and elsi who agrees that there is lots of "smoke and mirrors"

First to pantaraxia I want to write that while you may see the US behind one faction of oligarchs, I would argue (without links) that the global private finance elite are behind each and every oligarch you can name...it is a religion after all, don't you know? If one is an oligarch in our small world you can take it to the bank (pun intended) that they are well connected/subserviant to the top-rung elite in some way.

To Elsi, Fascism provides a powerful front for the structure of our current form of social organization with private finance and private property protected by unfettered inheritance at the core of elite support. All/most of the corporations form the circle around the private finance core and are controlled by the top rung elite where they are not outright owned.

To Daniel I would state my ongoing postulate that turning private finance into a public utility and ending inheritance/ongoing ownership of private property would structurally change the incentives we live our lives by....for the better. I would posit that any successful evolution of our species must make that one change to our social structure and the results would "solve all our problems" by changing the fundamental way in which we relate to each other....competition/cooperation.

ben | Dec 5, 2017 8:36:19 PM | 27
Daniel @ 21 said: "When I see IMF backing for both of those countries, I have to wonder just how much BRIC, One Road, etc. are sincere resistance to the Globalists."

Something I've pondered for quite some time now. Makes one think all this nonsense is just smoke and mirrors to confuse the peons, as the global elites fleece the sheep.

fudmier | Dec 5, 2017 8:48:34 PM | 28
17, and 24 have hit the nail on the head.. the whole idea of revealing hidden news is to implement a strategy designed to weaken the power of the masses in favor of the leaders of the masses. Divide and conquer is a method that implements that strategy. When controversial subject matter is discussed it weakens consensus. DQ applied to any controversial subject, weakens the consensus power of the mass(es) much like a second person on one side of a see-saw weakens the power of the first person to decide for him(her)self which end is up. Worse, when the two persons counter balance the see-saw, a third person can jump to the middle and easily control which of the first two are in the air and on the ground. Deep in the strategy is emotion. A controversial subject matter elicits emotions at various levels on both sides of controversy.
example: 1000 people.. 500 believe in gun control; 500 believe in open gun society.How did that happen? What news article could arouse desired or planned response? Let us say in each of the 500 groups; 30 persons (60 in all) are highly emotionally aroused by the issue; so target them, they will fight to death those who profess their opposite thought or belief and they will receive the support of the 430 on their side to start with. Now you have it.
90% of the news is about that.. D&C has been a propaganda technology since Rome days, but beginning around 1860, using propaganda to effect D&C technology was developed into a profession and the governments made that technology into a weapon of war.
I believe if the humanity of the world cannot find leadership to solve problems, then the masses are going to have to find ways to solve problems in spite of the nation states and the technology used by the nation states to prevent mass solutions that work. Every human being alive needs to understand the importance of contributing to the needs of the masses.
E | Dec 5, 2017 9:04:05 PM | 29
There's also this:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3846671.html
Ukrainian politician Daniel Papiev said on a Ukrainian talk show that, although a census hasn't been held for many years, the most "optimistic" number is that the population of Ukraine has declined to 32 million. When the USSR collapsed, Ukraine's population was 52 million, and before Maidan, it was a little over 45 million. Now it's 32. A loss of nearly 20 million people (2 million due to Crimea joining Russia) is an "impressive" result by any measure (even during the 1932-33 famine years, the Ukrainian population actually rose). Ukrainian politicians regularly state that at current levels of growth, it will take until the 2030s to reach "pre-Maidan" levels. If the population keeps declining like this, even that looks optimistic. It seems that there must be a lot more Ukrainians working in the shadow economy both in the EU and in Russia than is officially known about.
Grieved | Dec 5, 2017 10:01:33 PM | 34
@16 Jen

Slightly off-topic and trivial, but Tatyana Montyan said that Tymoshenko always used other people's money, and never shared it with anyone. I assume you've seen this clip from 2014 but if not you'll probably find it entertaining, since you have an interest in the players. Montoyan mentions Yulya around the 10:00 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtarbgbfHc

10:07 Yulia has always been very greedy and has never worked with her own money, and the people knew that the Party of Regions guys at least pay their bills,

10:17 They will pay with some government positions, bribes, some land and so on, Yulya could only say: "Thank you very much!"

10:27 And that's why I know that all BYT party structures in Cherkassy worked for the Party of Regions. I think around the country it's the same.

10:38 She was winning in the polls in fact, but she lost, of course, because she didn't want to invest in protecting her results

10:48 So now the situation will be the same. She has nothing. She has always been working with other's resources.

The whole clip is funny. Montoyan says that Poroshenko is a thief and the son of a thief, and that she met Tymoshenko who was at the time just a small-time thief.

More seriously, I owe this interview for the understanding that Ukraine is completely run by thieves for thieves. Once one knows that, all mysteries of statecraft are solved. There truly is no statecraft. Event the wars against the Donbass are to allocate war funds to be stolen.

nonsense factory | Dec 6, 2017 12:04:57 AM | 38
@Daniel 8, Minor correction the U.S.-backed Georgian attack on Ossetia was in 2008. That was a Condoleezza Rice-arranged action, which turned into a debacle.
Here's one decent summary from Dec 2008: (A bit biased towards standard western narrative, but better than a lot of the "Russia just attacked Georgia!" claims by CBS etc.)
"The tense but relatively stable situation blew up late in the evening of August 7, when on the order of president Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's army swept into South Ossetia, leveling much of Tskhinvali and surrounding villages and sending some 30,000 refugees fleeing north into Russia. Within hours, Russia's de facto czar Vladimir Putin counterattacked -- some say he'd set a trap -- and by the end of that long weekend the Georgians were in panicked retreat. The Russian army then pushed straight through South Ossetia and deep into Georgia proper, halting less than an hour's drive from Saakashvili's luxurious palace."

American military advisers had been training and supplying Georgian troops up to a few days before the invasion. There were at least 100 in the country, so you can guess that Saakashvili wouldn't have acted without the green light from the U.S. Part of the whole 'encircle Russia' strategy developed after it became clear Putin wouldn't let western interests take control of Russian natural resources. In any case, it's fairly hard to see how the Russian government would ever work with Saakashvili after that.

Everyone in the current Ukrainian government seems half-crazy at least, a bunch of oligarchs and mafia dons with all the usual squabbles over power and prestige.

nonsense factory | Dec 6, 2017 2:47:26 PM | 50
This is a walk down memory lane, I was watching this pretty closely at the time (I have a grandmother whose family is from Ossetia, so it was of personal interest). It was all a pretty crude brutal power play over pipeline control, with reckless disregard for the consequences - another Outlaw US Empire stunt. The coordinated timing to the Beijing Olympics (@40 Hague) is strange - deliberate?

One factor I was unaware of at the time is the explosion on the BTC pipeline in Turkey (the BTC runs from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean) on August 5, 2008. Originally Kurdish separatists claimed credit although nobody seems to be sure. Regardless, the main U.S. interest in Eastern Europe is controlling the pipeline routes to Europe. In Central Asia, the game is controlling oilfield production, while not allowing exports through Iran or Russia.

@47 mischi the Israeli involvement likely revolved around this Israeli proposal from 2006:

[Israeli] National Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told the Ambassador on June 21 that he recently returned from an oil and gas conference in Azerbaijan, where he met with government officials and discussed extending the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline to Israel. According to Ben-Eliezer, the pipeline is currently expected to run 220 km. from Azerbaijan to Georgia and Turkey. Adding Israel would extend the pipeline an additional 400 km., and Azerbaijan could subsequently use the Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline to transmit oil to the Red Sea for sale to customers in East Asia.

As part of this, the U.S. suggested joint military drills with Turkey, Israel and Georgia:

TGS will consider future regional Special Operations Forces (SOF) exercises in cooperation with Israel, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. (2007) . . .

. . . [Nasrallah] was also quoted as saying that Israel exported failed generals to train the Georgian army, referring to Brig. Gen. (res.) Gal Hirsch, who resigned his command after the Second Lebanon War


See More extensive discussion of Israel's role via Time (2008)

There are also many credible reports of Georgia using cluster munitions manufactured by Israel against Ossetia civilians and Russian forces; Human Rights Watch claimed Russia used cluster munitions as well; Georgia admitted to it but Russia denied using them. HRW often does not come across as impartial in these conflicts.

Georgia used the M85 submunition during the conflict, fired from GRADLAR rockets, which were purchased from Israel. . . it was also likely that the Georgians felt so overwhelmed by the Russian attack, they merely fired off everything they had with little thought to strike distance or consequences on the civilian population.

The overall agenda here has been the US State Department & Pentagon-coordinated plan to help Exxon and Chevron export oil from their leases in Kazakhstan (Israel being a bit player looking to secure oil supplies and transit fees):

Feb 2010: We are focused on helping the Kazakhstanis implement the Kazakhstan-Caspian Transportation System (KCTS), which envisions a virtual pipeline of tankers transporting large volumes of crude from Kazakhstan's Caspian coast to Baku, from where it will flow onward to market through Georgia, including through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.

Kill and slaughter for oil profits, same old game.

Rusty Pipes | Dec 6, 2017 5:03:48 PM | 51
@nonsense factory#50:

The agenda of Human Rights Watch (which was founded as Helsinki Watch)frequently aligns with that of the US State Dept., ignoring or downplaying crimes of friends of the US and highlighting alleged crimes of US enemies.

[Dec 07, 2017] Russiagate Becomes Israelgate by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," ..."
"... "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser." ..."
"... The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] . ..."
"... The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans. ..."
Dec 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Reading the mainstream media headlines relating to the flipping of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to provide evidence relating to the allegations about Russian interference in America's last presidential election requires the suspension of one's cognitive processes. Ignoring completely what had actually occurred, the "Russian story" with its subset of "getting Trump" was on display all through the weekend, both in the print and on the live media.

Flynn's guilty plea is laconic, merely admitting that he had lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about what was said during two telephone conversations with then Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, but there is considerable back story that emerged after the plea became public.

The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.

Based on the information revealed regarding the two conversations, and, unlike the highly nuance-sensitive editors working for the mainstream media, this is the headline that I would have written for a featured article based on what I consider to be important: "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," with a possible subheading "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser."

The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd .

The second phone call, made by Flynn on December 29 th from a beach in the Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, may have been ordered by Trump himself. It was a response to an Obama move to expel Russian diplomats and close two Embassy buildings over allegations of Moscow's interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn asked the Russians not to reciprocate, making the point that there would be a new administration in place in three weeks and the relationship between the two countries might change for the better. Kislyak apparently convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin not to go tit-for-tat.

In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong. It would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team. Apart from holding off on retaliatory sanctions, Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump overtures. If it was an attempt to interfere in American politics, it certainly was low-keyed, and one might well describe it positively as a willingness to give the new Trump Administration a chance to improve relations.

The first phone call about Israel was not as benign as the second one about sanctions. Son-in-law Jared Kushner is Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.

And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Netanyahu said that he would do so and Trump even responded with a tweet of his own expressing disagreement with the Obama decision to abstain on the vote, but the White House knew that the comment would be coming and there was no indication from the president-elect that he was actively trying to derail or undo it.

Kushner, however, goes far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was trying to clandestinely reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way. He is currently working on a new peace plan for the Middle East which starts out with permanently demilitarizing the Palestinians. It will no doubt continue in the tradition of former plans which aggrandized Jewish power while stiffing the Arabs. And not to worry about the team that will be allegedly representing American interests. It is already being reported that they consist of "good, observant Jews" and will not be a problem, even though Israeli-American mega-fundraiser Haim Saban apparently described them on Sunday as "With all due respect, it's a bunch of Orthodox Jews who have no idea about anything."

What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite equate to the Constitution's definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy, but it most certainly would be covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States" that the Mueller investigation has exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , this part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it is being ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible. And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.

And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha.

For me, there was also a second take-away from the Flynn story apart from the collusion with Israel. It involves the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to set-up Flynn shortly after he had been installed as National Security Adviser. Insofar as I can determine, the FBI entrapment of Flynn has only been examined in a serious way in the media by Robert Parry at Consortium News.

Michael Flynn was actually interviewed by the FBI regarding his two phone conversations on January 24 th shortly after assumed office as National Security Adviser. During his interview, he was not made aware that the Bureau already had recordings and transcripts of his phone conversations, so, in a manner of speaking, he was being set-up to fail. Mis-remembering, forgetting or attempting to avoid implication of others in the administration would inevitably all be plausibly construed as lying since the FBI knew exactly what was said.

To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets, but the logic used to set-up the possible Flynn entrapment by the FBI, i.e. that there was unauthorized contact with a foreign official, is in itself curious as Flynn was a private citizen at the time and such contact is not in itself illegal. And it also opens the door to the Bureau's investigating other individuals who have committed no crime but who find that they cannot recall details of phone calls they were parties to that were being recorded by the government six months or a year before. That can easily be construed as "lying" or "perjury" with consequences that include possible prison time.

So there are two observations one might make about the Flynn saga as it currently stands. First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one. And second, record all your phone conversations with foreign government officials. The NSA and FBI will have a copy in any event, but you might want to retain your own records to make sure their transcript is accurate.

Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] .

CanSpeccy , Website December 5, 2017 at 5:52 am GMT

How is it that the FBI interrogates an agent of the President Elect on secret negotiations conducted on behalf of the President Elect?

And isn't that agent of the President Elect obliged, as a matter of national security, to conceal the details of those secret negotiations from anyone who attempts to extract them from him, lying as necessary to do so?

And anyhow, what was the point? Why the interrogation? The negotiations were made over the telephone, so the US Government, and presumably, therefore, the FBI, could obtain a transcript if they needed to know what was said.

The whole story seems nonsensical. But if anyone comes out of this looking good, maybe it will be Flynn. while it is the FBI and Robert Mueller who get their come uppance.

Kiza , December 5, 2017 at 5:53 am GMT
Nothing new, but a very clear summary of the situation, as one would expect from Mr Giraldi – including the customary warping of reality by the TPTB (substitution of "Israel" with "Russia").

Perhaps, the article is too tepid only on the legal entrapment combined with NSA recording of communications. Who says that this will be applied only to conversations with foreign nationals? I am sure that other statutes exist or will be quickly created to entrap anyone who does not remember word-for-word what was said in his communications with anyone else: thus lying to the Police etc. This is a magnificent self-awarded gift to the US regime which will only keep giving. I am waiting for the vassals to follow closely behind – the five-eyes and EU countries to develop similar entrapment resources.

What is the point of recording someone's communications if you cannot also put him in jail at will?

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.

Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in line. Or, if he is really angry, he could send a few Mossad agents to have a talk with the Jewish reporters about how they're hurting Israel, and if that happens, then too bad because the Mossad will have to do something about them.

Anyway, it looks like Mueller's investigation will halt at Flynn. If Mueller tries to go farther, something 'interesting' may happen to him. If he does, I expect to see a full smackdown of his investigation from every direction with accusations against his honesty and probity, followed by his firing once enough public rage has been ginned up against him so that all liberal protests in his favor are drowned out by the fury of the lynch mob.

Cloak And Dagger , December 5, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT
Phil, this makes me feel even worse than I did before. I knew that RussiaGate was nonsense from the Hillary camp, however, the fact that Trump would bring his son-in-law into the WH and allow him to collude with Israel against the national interests of this country, fills me with dismay.

While I supported Trump mostly as an anti-Hillary stance and not because I saw him as someone who would bring about great positive change to our country (e.g. draining the swamp), I had hoped that his pandering to Israel during the election campaign was mostly political SOP. Since last November, however, he has gradually lost me. I am happy that he has not started new wars, but with the accelerated donkey-felating of Israel, I am not confident that we won't soon embark on more wars for Israel and more funds to that shitty country from our taxes.

Not a very merry Christmas.

Hank Rearden , December 5, 2017 at 6:45 am GMT
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed because he was stupid enough to talk to the police. Never talk to the police. Don't believe me, this is a detective who says don't talk to the police:

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Of course, nowadays if you assert your 5th Amendment right to not talk, street cops will construe that as mental illness, so it's acceptable to do as Kenny Suitter does. Remind them verbally that you're not talking to them by saying: "I don't answer questions."

How To Survive A Traffic Stop: "I Don't Answer Questions"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE

Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.

Checkpoint: I REMAIN SILENT-NO SEARCHES-I WANT MY LAWYER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI8QiqH-R_I

Wally , Website December 5, 2017 at 7:29 am GMT
Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is on this as well:

From 'Russia-Gate' to 'Israel-Gate'

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/12/03/russia-gate-israel-gate/

Jon Baptist , December 5, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
Bravo to Phil Giraldi for calling out and writing about these treasonous bastards. Thanks to Unz for giving him the platform. Keep reporting and hopefully there will be enough people that will stand up and prevent this tyranny from developing further.
Mark James , December 5, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
The Russian collusion story will flower eventually. I feel certain of that. But really, who among us did not feel that Kushner would be doing Israel's bidding, from back as far as the spring of 2016? Who thought that 'One President at a time' would apply to Jarad and the administration elect?

It has never been made clear why Flynn was the man as far as Jarad and Ivanka were concerned? Was it merely because they viewed him as a dupe for their plans?
Was Obama setting up the new administration with someone he knew was already criminally exposed–Flynn–and was the almost certain hire –because of Kushner– as well as because of the current president's strong objections?

Yes it seems like the term "duel loyalty" was almost made for Kushner. With Jarad's title of Ambassador without portfolio Israel didn't even have to effort a move of the US embassy to Jerusalem –it was a given– and as far as permission to attack Iran? I'm afraid that seems in the cards as well.
If Israel isn't mentioned–by US Media– it should be. While all calls are not recorded by NSA it is likely that those countries with the greatest presence in spy assets within the US (Rus/Isl) undoubtedly are. Yes Flynn lied to the FBI. I don't think there's much question Kushner will too.

jilles dykstra , December 5, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT
https://www.rt.com/news/411937-syria-intercepts-israeli-missiles/

I suppose here we have an important cause of Russiagate, Israel sees that Syria is not destabilised, just physically destroyed, thanks to Russian interference.
USA support is the only reason Israel still exists, good relations between USA and Russia may mean the end of Israel, in any case the end of Israeli power in the ME.
And if USA support ends, what about German support ?
Will Israel get another two billion submarine, for which the German taxpayer pays some 400 million ?
At the same time, I fear we see that no anti missile system is capable of destroying many missiles if they come at the same time.
When, I hope never, Russia fires most of its 1600 old fashioned ballistic missiles at the USA, some will het through, I suppose.

LondonBob , December 5, 2017 at 8:38 am GMT
Well I said if Mueller wants to make himself useful he could take down Kushner. Be interesting to see if we get any follow up on him, or if it quietly dies in the dark as you surmise, these things always seem to once they have the potential to impact negatively on Zionist interests. Will that kill the whole investigation, it certainly seems to be coming to a dead end anyway?
jacques sheete , December 5, 2017 at 12:12 pm GMT

First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one.

Well, it certainly doesn't surprise me and I'm (happily) a nobody. Anyway, at least the Ziocreeps are consistent.

Looks like Oncle Joey was right again.

"Blame others for your own sins."

J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 -- January, 1907

Why does "Israel" seem to be at, or very near, the center of most major issues of the day once the curtain is lifted a bit, and why are they nearly always suspected of doing something unjust and shady if not downright criminal?

And what about the eternal victim image we dumb goyim are supposed to imbibe with our mammy's milk?

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.

The FBI went into that interview with the plan to get Flynn. He never had a chance. Even if he had a transcript of his phone conversations, and provided answers from that, they would've manipulated him into a BS process crime.

I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and then make threats on what people didn't say. If you're a target of the FBI it makes no difference how honest you are and how precise and accurate your answers are to their questions.

Apart from all that, I trust people with last name Kushner over people with the last name of Mueller or Strzok

Michael Kenny , December 5, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT
Smoke screen! The spooks are more spooked than ever! What exactly did the US intelligence services get up to that they're now so scared of Russiagate? Mr Giraldi is in such a panic that he totally fails to make the point in the title. He essentially admits Russian interference but does not establish, nor even, in fact, claim, that there is any connection between Israel and Russian interference. Israel has no need to engage in undercover interference to influence US politics. It does so quite openly and has the Israel Lobby to support it. It certainly has no need of Russian help! One might also ask what disadvantage there would have been for Israel if Hillary was elected. Why would they feel the need to manipulate the election in Trump's favour? Thus, it's not an "either or" situation, as Mr Giraldi tries to present it. Regardless of whether or not there was also Israeli interference, Russian interference, with the help of American "associates", is well established and confirmed by an almost identical pattern of interference in the French presidential election. More interestingly, though, what has emerged from Flynn's testimony so far is that the initiative came from the Trump campaign, not the Russians. The evidence available up to that point suggested that the Russians had taken the initiative and more or less set up the naïve "bunch of Orthodox Jews". It's little wonder therefore that both Putin's American supporters and Trump's personal lawyer are running around in panic!
Rurik , December 5, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT

Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal,

And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.

Mueller was head of the FBI during the 9/11 "investigation"

you don't get anymore 'swamp creature' than that

more here:

Trump succeeded in convincing Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to order his UN delegation to delay the vote. Egypt then withdrew its sponsorship of 2334. However, four members of the Security Council -- Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela – counteracted Sisi's abandonment and brought the resolution to a Council vote. It passed and was enacted due to the American abstention. It is quite certain that the Obama administration sought the assistance of its intelligence and military ally, New Zealand, in bolstering Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela against furious backroom opposition from Israel and the Trump transition team. Trump and Kushner decided that just prior to Flynn's indictment, they would demonstrate their fealty to Israel by announcing that the United States was going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such actions, far from showing "collusion" with a foreign power, point to conflicted loyalty, at the very least.

Netanyahu told New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully that New Zealand's support for the resolution would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Israel,

when I read the above quote, it seemed too explosive not to have a link, so I 'Binged' it

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Netanyahu+told+New+Zealand+Foreign+Minister+Murray+McCully+that+New+Zealand%E2%80%99s+support+for+the+resolution+would+be+tantamount+to+a+declaration+of+war+against+Israel%2C&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=netanyahu+told+new+zealand+foreign+minister+murray+mccully+that+new+zealand%E2%80%99s+support+for+the+resolution+would+be+tantamount+to+a+declaration+of+war+against+israel%2C&sc=0-164&sk=&cvid=A2DAF44977384BD69F64DB8790CDC672

from the first link:

Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand's foreign minister that support for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be viewed as a "declaration of war".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war

anyways, more from the article

There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act .

too funny!

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/04/mueller-names-trump-foreign-colluding-power-israel.html

To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets,

if he was talking money from Turkey, to represent their interests- while masquerading as our National Security Advisor, then I wouldn't mind seeing him hanged by the neck until it snapped or until he stopped dancing.

but then that's how I feel about all acts of treason against my nation, and the scum who serve the interests of our deadliest enemy at the direct expense of this nation they swore a sacred oath to.

Svigor , December 5, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT
I wonder how clean the Democrats' hands are, vis-a-vis the Logan Act? Has every incoming Democrat administration really been so squeaky clean in its dealings with foreign agents?

The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.

IANAL; does the old "fruit of the poison tree" apply to investigations/prosecutions as a whole, or just to evidence found/used therein? Because the fact that one of the interviewers, (((Strzok))) (caveat: (((echoes))) based on personal Jewdar only (facial phrenology, name, occupation, politics, corruption); was unable to confirm via Gewgle) has been ejected from Mueller's team seems germane. Maybe he'll only impact the trial, the way Fuhrman impacted OJ's trial?

It's interesting how central the Logan Act has been in all this, considering how it's never been used to prosecute anyone in its over 217 years of existence. The Jews and their lackeys are now reduced to using blue Laws; to return to the "mobs Jews stirred up that turned on them" motif, what if we started prosecuting Jews with blue laws against, say, sodomy?

The NYT has a new piece up, titled "Why the Trump Team should fear the Logan Act."

Why the Trump team should fear the Swamp's use of blue laws? Because the Swamp is totally corrupt and they hate Trump, that's why.

The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country.

It would be interesting to know more about that; how much more worthy do the Kushners regard Israel as being of Conservative advocacy, compared to their ostensible homeland, the United States? Because they seem to be fairly leftist in their desires for the latter.

His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way.

How Jews see themselves is very often a study in rationalization and self-deception; eminently worthy of study, but never to be taken at face value.

I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.

Trump may be marginally more pro-Zionist than the communist (AKA leftist) establishment, but it's not really possible for Trump to be "a lot more pro-Israel"; there isn't enough daylight available – the communists are too pro-Zionist for that.

And I doubt that margin is really worth the trouble; the Diaspora Wing of the Tribe hates Hates HATES Trump and wants him gone Gone GONE. It's harder to do business with the Swamp when it's mobilized to destroy the current administration; being seen as too cozy with the object of their hatred is counter-productive.

Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in line.

The money flow is very much in the opposite direction; from the Jewish diaspora to Israel, not the other way around.

Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.

It's also a good idea to keep asking cops if you can leave. They often have to wait on K-9 units, for which demand outstrips supply. And they have regulations as to how long they're allowed to keep you waiting before they conduct their search, and crucially don't have to volunteer the fact that they have limits on how long they're allowed to make you wait . But they do have to tell you if you're free to leave, if you're free to leave. So ask them every 5 minutes or so, "may I leave now?"

While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.

The upper ranks seem to be thick with Jews, too. Which should surprise no one who knows even a bit about Soviet history.

Corvinus , December 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Anonymous

"I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and then make threats on what people didn't say."

Double Fake News Story.

You, as well as Girabaldi, really need to become educated as far as the Mueller investigation is concerned.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Eagle Eye , December 5, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Who within the Administration allowed Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24, 2017?

It seems Flynn was intentionally set up by disloyal legal and other advisers on Trump's team, obviously to drive a wedge into the incoming administration.

No lawyer worth his salt would allow such an interview to proceed without serious preparation and safeguards. Having just assumed office, the White House had legitimate reasons to slow-walk any FBI requests. In particular, Team Trump should and could have waited until the FBI was cleansed of the worst hold-overs and swamp creatures (such as Deputy AG Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller).

Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have argued that he was entitled to executive privilege. Of course, the MSM were out to get Trump from the outset, and no doubt coordinated their story with Comey and Mueller.

SolontoCroesus , December 5, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT
@Jake

Buchanan's latest article, Is Flynn's Defection a Death Blow? , asks Why Why Why did Flynn lie to the FBI.

He committed the Martha Stewart offense. An ankle monitor is not that big a deal; Martha's still baking cupcakes in recycled soda cans and selling overpriced stuff.

So maybe Flynn is actually a patriot, and fell on a rubber sword on purpose, in order to expose the Israel connection that he perceived as getting out of hand??

One can dream.

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
Nothing new. Israel was meddling in the US political system even before it was created. But the deep state will summarily reject the truth and keep pushing its fairy tale about "evil Russia": after all, Israel is not a suitable bogeyman to justify totally insane "defense" budget, which now exceeds the sum total of defense budgets of the rest of the world. Russia, like the USSR before it, is used to justify shameless feeding frenzy of Pentagon contractors. They are destroying the US more effectively than any enemy could, but their greed blinds them to the fact.
CanSpeccy , Website December 5, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have argued that he was entitled to executive privilege.

So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers? For example, to demonstrate, in due course, that he was compelled to lie to protect national security from a lawless and out of control FBI.

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
@LondonBob

The former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry:
"When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear annihilation] During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be. Today, inexplicably to me, we're recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we're rebuilding the nuclear dangers. We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there's very real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/former-us-defense-secretary-explains-why-nuclear-holocaust-now-likely

Paul Craig Roberts (the former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy): https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/05/walking-into-armageddon/
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers of the 21st century, have immobilized the President of the United States. The real reason that the military/security complex is after Gen. Flynn is that he is the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and he said on a TV news show that the decision by the Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Syria was a "willful decision" that went against his recommendation . In other words, Flynn let the cat out of the bag that ISIS was not an independently formed organization but a tool of US policy. Private interests and agendas have control over the US government. Washington works by selling legislation to the interest groups in exchange for campaign contributions. The private interests that provide the money that elects politiicans get the laws that they want."

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Panic." Yes – the panic is palpable in the Israelis'/Lobby' words and deeds in relation to Syria's sovereignty. The ziocon's mad irritation with the end of slaughter in Syria deprives them of reason. Thence the visceral, irrational, overwhelming hatred of Russians by the moral midgets that profess "Israel first." The supremacist fools would initiate a nuclear conflict to prevail in a fight with their Arab cousins. Could not you just leave the western civilization alone?

"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers of the 21st century" – so true! We are witnessing the end of your profitable "eternal victimhood."

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT
@Sherman

And look where Kushner's "competence" has taken the investigation into Russiagate . Amazing, indeed.
Also, what could be more valuable for Israel (the only theocratic apartheid "democracy" in the Middle East) than the sweet and devoted friendship with the so upright and moral Saudis! And none other than the aspiring Jared has procured this special friendship. Jared is really good at clearing the fog of Israeli "democratic" morals.

Eagle Eye , December 5, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers?

Not impossible but this sounds like too much 4D chess. Also, the public exposure of Flynn is immediate and harmful, whereas any gain against the Deep State is deferred and speculative.

Beckow , December 5, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Let's imagine this story if it happened in a different country:

An opposition leader wins a close election after a government uses all its power and media control to elect a selected successor. During the transition, the state police investigates the members of the incoming administration and puts them under surveillance. Street mobs that support the previous government are unleashed on the streets to intimidate the elected president and his supporters. After the opposition is sworn in, the old-regime loyalists immediately start investigating them and threaten them with removal from office.

Media who supported the previous administration goes on a hysterical witch-hunt. A special committee is formed to investigate the incoming president and any people connected to him. Eventually people are charged with talking to ' foreigners ' and ' lying ' about it when interrogated by the state police. The losing candidate openly disparages the legitimacy of the elected president. Media cheers it on and constantly predicts how very soon the interloper who somehow managed to win the elections will be removed.

If this happened in a different country, Washington would now be talking sanctions or worse.

renfro , December 5, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
@Rurik

Kennedy was the only president to go after Israel and the Jews US Fifth Column.
In addition to demanding Israel open their nuke facilities for inspection his adm and AG supported the 1963 Fulbright Senate hearings on the ZOA and its Jews in the US. The ZOA then became AIPAC under Johnson.

That's why they killed him.

DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent

"Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act "

Documents

In the early 1960′s Israel funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. The funds were channeled via the quasi governmental Jewish Agency's New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella group, the American Zionist Council. Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings documented funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the record. But the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its major functions were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the "Kenen Committee," called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late 1960′s. The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of Justice case files released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.

John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General

Document/File Date Contents
08/27/1962 AZC internal memo – Lenore Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department of Public Information literature distribution.
Undated 1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan summary
10/31/1962 Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Internal Security Division J. Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy " we are soliciting next week the registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act You may be aware that the American Zionist Council is composed of representatives of the various Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization of America."
11/06/1962 Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting with Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to AZC. " in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the discussions he has had with various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency relationship would result which may require registration.'"
11/14/1962 Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration order. "I doubt very much there will be any fuss. I don't think the American Zionist Council is in any position to do so the Council has compromised its position." OK'd by Robert F. Kennedy.
11/21/1962 DOJ orders AZC to register under FARA " receipt of such funds from the American Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign principal the Council's registration is requested."
12/06/1962 AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller response to DOJ "The request for registration contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of relationships which first must be resolved by us before compliance can be made. Therefore, it is requested that you be good enough to grant us a delay of 120 days "
01/02/1963
Archive Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC
01/24/1963
DOJ draft file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind " he had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the receipt of any additional funds Mr. Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of the 'activities' on the part of AZC did not absolve it of its obligation to register "

01/25/1963 Article in the National Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – "AZC Gives Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration"
02/01/1963 DOJ Executive Assistant Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes "Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not of course be reached during the course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why it was of the opinion it should not be required to register ."
02/08/1963 DOJ AZC January 23, 1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed "discontinuance of receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship did not absolve the Council of its obligation to register."
02/19/1963 American Council for Judaism (AJC) newsletter. "The American Zionist Council (coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist organizations) was asked last month by the Justice Department to register as a 'foreign agent' of the State of Israel."
03/07/1963 New York Times reporter Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent order state AJC press release.
3/23/1963 AZC Counsel "Memorandum of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."
04/01/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law rejected. " if necessary I would be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated."

continued

http://www.israellobby.org/forrel/default.asp

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT
@Talha

Okay, makes more sense.

As far as tech goes Google (Brin at least) and Facebook were significantly Jewish at starting; Amazon is heavily reliant on investment capital and probably a significant portion of the early developers were Jewish; they were well represented in the 90s tech scene. Also the relationship between computing and finance, plus the emigration of Soviet Jews, was probably a factor.

nickels , December 5, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

Honestly, impeachment would be a good thing, because it would throw the US into such chaos that it might be less able to wreak death and destruction around the world.
It also would finally lift the scales off the Trumpees eyes and make it clear that the whole thing is rotten to the core.

lavoisier , Website December 5, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT
"Russiagate Becomes Israelgate."

Correction: Russiagate was ALWAYS Israelgate.

Cyrano , December 5, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT
This site is full of Jewish conspiracy theorists. I am not one of them. The only Jewish "conspiracy" that I have ever been able to detect is that they "conspire" to be successful. As opposed to the rest of us, I guess – who conspire to be failures in life. Jews are opportunists, they take advantage of the rules that the stupid gentiles make. And good on them, they have shown remarkable skills doing that.

In the middle ages when the only way to be rich was to own a land, European countries forbade the Jews from owning land. Then when the center of economic activity switched to the cities – guess who was the best positioned to take full advantage of the situation – the Jews. They became merchants, lawyers, bankers and so on.

I guess the stupid Europeans should have foreseen this development and as soon as the cities became centers of wealth and economic activity – they should have gone Pol Pot on the Jews – banish them to the countryside to do some farming there. So stop bitching about the current situation in the US, it's not fault of the Jews, they are just taking advantage of the stupidity of the US gentile elites.

Anon , Disclaimer December 6, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT
Too many commenters cloud the issue by equating every Jew with a Zionist. This is just as wrong as counting every German as a Nazi. Many Jews are appalled by the aggressiveness of Israel and apartheid it practices.
CanSpeccy , Website December 6, 2017 at 12:44 am GMT
@Beckow

Agreed. The Lib-Dems and their corpo/media/Follywood allies are attempting to destroy the legitimacy of an elected president by means of fake news, fake indignation and fake charges of treason.

But Trump surely has deep state allies as well as opponents, and thus will have been aware before the inauguration of what he could expect, and would therefore likely have set traps for the opposition.

The fact that the Mueller probe is losing all credibility suggests that the opposition may yet come off worse than the President.

CanSpeccy , Website December 6, 2017 at 12:54 am GMT
@renfro

I suggest everyone who is fed up with Trump's Israel First betrayal of the US let him know .

Is Trump an Israel Firster, or simply a friend of Israel. Trump ran a nationalistic election campaign and appears to be following through on his commitment to restoring the border, restricting Muslim immigration, etc. Such policies are exactly in line with those of Israel. So why would Trump not be pro-Israel? And in fact, the stronger Israel becomes, the less the US need aid Israel or tolerate American Israeli firsters.

The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans.

[Dec 05, 2017] Further sabotage of the Iran deal would not bring success -- only embarrassment

This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
Sep 14, 2015 | The Guardian

The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.

We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.

Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal." The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.

If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.

Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic, to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.

Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.

TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47

a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes

I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose. To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.

ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04

The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently.

winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01

Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as Hitler and his Nazism crap.

Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50

I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).

mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51

Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.

ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27

Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.

What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.

ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15

AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.

ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18

Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.

hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42

With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.

nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12

Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.

The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious.

Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51

good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear - especially safety and liberty with in their country....

EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45

I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.

BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53

The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The Chinese only took four years. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/228244.htm

steelhead 12 Sep 2015 12:48

As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.

BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35

"Europe needs business desperately."

Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32

In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.

They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly - and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot more, too.

AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support.

Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger, less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over the next few decades.

BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18

"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.

Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07

"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."

The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.

FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in 1979.

People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in 2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward, and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.

He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners (like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.

People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some help.

beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57

No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.

geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12

It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.

Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38

The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.

To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led bombing campaign as the only other option.

Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk.

American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.

ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01

And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.

He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished. He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and no ties with Al Qaeda.

So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!

HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31

That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.

On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.

imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56

Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.

It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.

Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using tea leaves.

imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43

Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the 5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel (no).

Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism, actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.

I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear nor delusions of Godhood.

imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33

I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.

Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood and gets no free rides.

Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.

imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18

Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war. It's how Iran actually feels that is important.

For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced. It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.

Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS' caliphate.

I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging it rather than sabre-rattling.

(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)

Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior to that of any nearby nation.

That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's only threat.

mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10

Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.

bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09

The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what to do.

Jeremiah2000 -> Carolyn Walas Libbey 11 Sep 2015 19:21

"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."

But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with Russian and Chinese influence. Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly worded message.

Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05

Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.

Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04

Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists but apart from that just a kitten

Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00

Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling

Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57

Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.

To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe. So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...

lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58

Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.

It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of people feelings on actual policy.

To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.

The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?

MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34

You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect, but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)

USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34

American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.

Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.

But we'll see.

niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29

Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?

hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02

Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.

JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30

Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10692563/David-Cameron-tells-Israelis-about-his-Jewish-ancestors.html

talenttruth 11 Sep 2015 13:12

The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."

And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people are INSANE. Time to simply say so.

Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58

At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim Newell of Slate:

""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 1938?"

His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily armed citizenry."

That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.

Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47

AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people.

tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47

AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.

impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37

This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try this?

[Dec 05, 2017] Russians are concerned with the possibility of organizing Maidan in their country by Western intelligence and internal neoliberal fifth column

Now they should be twice concerned. But, in general, color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington) protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this Shaun Walker
Notable quotes:
"... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong. ..."
"... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
"... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
"... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people. ..."
"... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
"... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
"... Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
"... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy. ..."
"... Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue. ..."
"... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe. ..."
"... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks. ..."
"... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine ..."
"... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
"... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
"... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
"... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism. ..."
"... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
"... There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. ..."
"... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
"... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? ..."
Jan 16, 2015 | The Guardian

Patriotic group formed to defend Russia against pro-democracy protesters by Shaun Walker

The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan, said on Thursday it would fight any attempts to bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych.

"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first," said Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.

"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

jgbg -> RunLukeRun, 16 Jan 2015 06:36

BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job

I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:

Nazis on the march in Kiev this month

Would you like to claim that the Azov and Aidar battalions aren't a bunch of Nazis?

Here's a Guardian article about Azov.

The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.

As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no?

TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21

Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself informed.

jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19

You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.

The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e. someone acceptable to the US government at the helm.

Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.

jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12

What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my country.

I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn, funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).

The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual accounts.

Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09

He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable 20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated. The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found this timely. But we cannot blaim on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny him self. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society. They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts. The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure he lost any groups with many Russians.

Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50

I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.

Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41

This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator said BBC is out of their reach. But guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.

Asimpleguest -> romans

International Observer

''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''

PeraIlic

"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," said Nikolai Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.

Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself briefly:

An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov

Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.

Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily.
If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining NATO?

That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that America is a friend.

imperfetto

This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distorsions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to organise yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.

The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY).

The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism, scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the 'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs, allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)

But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.

Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:

a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.

VladimirM

"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia," said The Surgeon, whose real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.

Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as "beast" but what he said was closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.

Kondratiev

There is at least anecdotal evidence that Maiden protestors were paid - see: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-and-eu-are-paying-ukrainian-rioters-and-protesters/5369316 .

Bosula

These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will get you up to speed....

The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs

Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht

Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir Russophobia.

seventh

Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to defend it.

Robert Sandlin -> seventh

Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in Russia.

Bulagen

I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).

jezzam -> Bulagen

All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely because they would threaten his power.

sashasmirnoff -> jezzam

The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?

I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.

The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things) the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.

I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc. All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.

One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally ruin the World Order.

Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan

Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?

Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin

Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have the corner on black shirts!

WardwarkOwner

Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?

Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner

I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran, Norway, Qatar, etc.

So what exactly is your point?

Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob

Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be blind . in mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .

PullingTheStrings

If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country

if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons.

Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings

For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire comment is an act of deflection.

The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.

Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any protests with violent vigilante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.

Bob Vavich -> Jackblob

Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. I can also tell you that when I drove through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".

Jackblob -> Bob Vavich

I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".

Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.

Hamdog

Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.

We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.

In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.

E1ouise -> Hamdog

Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliment* after he fled to Russia. Why don't you know this yet?

secondiceberg -> E1ouise

Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him out" the next day.

Bosula -> secondiceberg

Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the Rada with weapons while the vote taken.

Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.

Sourcrowd

The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.

Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd

I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.

Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45.

I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking about.

Bosula -> Sourcrowd

Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?

Bosula

A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.

Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.

Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe.

TuleCarbonari -> Bosula

A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.

Flinryan

Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

MarcelFromage -> Flinryan

I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the rest of the international community.

secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage

And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine. Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.

Velska

CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.

To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.

Bosula -> Velska

You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.

secondiceberg -> Velska

What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?

What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.

Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.

cichonio

"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first,"

That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been seen yet.

Also,

"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"

I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.

Bosula -> cichonio

Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type environment.

Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals. Utterly bizarre.

secondiceberg -> cichonio

So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.

Bob Vavich -> cichonio

Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely, the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged. What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe. Probably not.

SHappens

"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready," said Yulia Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.

This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.

They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.

"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

ploughmanlunch

After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia.
That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism.

FlangeTube

"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.

Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a say too.

As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa.

Sergei Konyushenko

Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?

FallenKezef

It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.

Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened to a pro-Russian government it's ok.

I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.

Spaceguy1 One

The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations

The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.

Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.

It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/06/the-crimea-referendum-15-percent-for-myth/

vr13vr

This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by street disturbance and stone throwing.

Beckow

Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia said that they will come out and protest in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. They said that their side also needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.

That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tatoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western connections. That's the way democracies should work.

About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an interesting point. There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?

Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are involved?

rezevici

Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the "patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.

The ethics of Russians will be on display.

Anette Mor -> rezevici

There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots. Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not opposition. They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.

PeraIlic

by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid, everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle thrown," said Sablin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no evidence.

There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.

Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?

We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...

...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.

Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?

RandolphHearst -> PeraIlic,

You antipathy against the author speaks volumes about the contents of his article.

susandbs12 , link

All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine.

We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.

And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.

daffyddw

Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Bless you all, little brothers.

susandbs12 -> daffyddw

Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.

Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.

Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different views from you, so what?

LaAsotChayim

Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid" implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?

How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!

Anette Mor -> Strummered

Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does not bring any good.

A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net. Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per nation, no matter how big or small.

The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.

kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests

kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.

http://moscow.usembassy.gov/democracy.html

and this is only one of them, many more in budget.

MartinArvay

pro-democracy protesters?

like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK?

They are right

[Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

Highly recommended!
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
Feb 01, 2016 | chroniclesmagazine.org
View all posts from this blog

On January 23 Freedom and Prosperity Radio , Virginia's only syndicated political talk radio show, broadcast an interview with Srdja Trifkovic on the subject of Islam and the ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe. Here is the full transcript of the interview. ( Audio )

FPR: Your book The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem. Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than their way . . .

ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam, Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.

In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality. Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung , world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.

FPR: . . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement, as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?

ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and "the World of War, Dar al-Harb .

It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination. In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to an end.

FPR: The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism" which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?

ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them, and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."

The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere. Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.

FPR: How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?

ST: I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.

But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught, in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.

So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries, it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise -- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that fact.

FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response . . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?

ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc, and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne. And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.

Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.

FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .

ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion" mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion. They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.

To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation, when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.

FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?

ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.

FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?

ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.

[Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

Highly recommended!
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Apr 15, 2015 | antiwar.com
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."

As I recently reviewed a YouTube eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.

While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.

But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."

That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?

The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies" are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."

Putin's Comment

The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.

But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.

If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.

I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.

Visiting Wolfowitz

In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991. President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.

According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."

It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."

True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done in the past.

An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.

A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.

Israeli/Neocon Preferences

But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments, like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]

The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.

In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013, we called attention to an uncommonly candid report about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.

Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naďve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear in what Rudoren wrote.

In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:

"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"

Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement – overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.

Favoring Jihadis

But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.

Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the nations" of the Middle East.

That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.

As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.

Corker Uncorked

Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.

Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without the United States jumping into another Middle East war.

It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.

At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.

Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

Reprinted with permission from Consortium News.

[Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

Highly recommended!
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite. If you look at the role of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser counterparts around the world.

Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.

This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers."

The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt has done so for many, many centuries.

... ... ...

From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of the government or private life they were connected.

This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.

Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?

... ... ...

Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out, go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject defeat for the other.

Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the Gulf War in Iraq.

... ... ...

This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment.

One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.

This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders.

The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.

It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.

Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.

The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist.

Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3

[Nov 29, 2017] It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because you are not doing enough to support it.

Notable quotes:
"... "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it." ..."
Nov 29, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , , November 28, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Ha, ha!!! The Victim Of The Aggressor Country seldom fails to entertain. Here we have VR Deputy Chairperson Ira Gerashchenko bossing Europe around , and telling it that the Victim Of The Aggressor Country's parliamentary delegation will continue to insist on Russia not returning to the Council of Europe. Because, she says, Russia has stolen part of the territory of the VOTAC which was a gift from Russia in the first place (although she doesn't mention that last part), thereby setting a precedent for every country which has a province 'liberated' by the west to term it stolen by the west. But that wasn't my favourite part. No; this is – "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it."

Beautiful, Ira!! Inspiring!! And how many degraded European leaders are Billionaires who openly own an impressive slate of businesses and media in their countries, which they continue to operate and profit from while piously declaring their only interest is the welfare of the country? Which is, by the bye, the most corrupt country in Europe ? How many Prosecutors-General has the VOTAC had since its glorious liberation from the yoke of the Moskali? Yes, you can certainly teach Yurrup a thing or two about integrity.

It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because you are not doing enough to support it. First we had the 'Me' generation. Then we had the 'Me' country.

[Nov 29, 2017] Brennan and Clapper Elder Statesmen or Serial Fabricators by Mike Whitney

Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
Nov 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Mike Whitney November 17, 2017

On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."

Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.

There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:

I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.

In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign.

The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:

Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.

So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?

Here's Brennan again on Sunday:

I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid lead let alone any compelling evidence.

We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.

These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.

Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:

Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.

In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .

Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)

So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?

He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?

And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:

"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program

Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .

Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)

So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA

These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?

Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.

As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.

Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Curmudgeon , November 23, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

What!!!! Someone from the management of an intelligence agency lying? I'm shocked!
Dan Hayes , November 25, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
m___ , November 25, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT
Fake news, and stale news. By when an algorithm of Goolag to "clean" the internet of current house-hold garbage?
Carroll Price , November 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen.
Che Guava , November 25, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.

Chris Bridges , November 25, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.

He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.

Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.

Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.

Michael Kenny , November 25, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
The umpteenth version of a now standard article.

We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors' claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.

What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.

We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line is suddenly back on the table.

Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.

Beefcake the Mighty , November 25, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT
Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this?
DESERT FOX , November 25, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.

Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and sent to prison for life.

jacques sheete , November 25, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.

And since when are the three not related?

It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.

Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?

Clyde , November 25, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Chris Bridges

Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.

Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective. One ugly customer!

Colleen Pater , November 25, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.

jilles dykstra , November 25, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio, 848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
jilles dykstra , November 25, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.

Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.

That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth, they are still waiting for the jobs.

Roger n Me , November 25, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that every sports tabloid wants to know.
Cyrano , November 25, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next US president wisely.

There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers, but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.

I.F. Stoned , November 25, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..

Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?

versus

A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?

I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.

We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.

And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories to convince voters to vote against Trump.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.

But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote their website.

Vikki , November 25, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.

Bottom , November 25, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT
@Colleen Pater

Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.

Adrian E. , November 25, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries), logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".

Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.

Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make sense to speculate about the reasons.

We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).

What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"? After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would that make it nefarious?

I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense. If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social media election campaign hardly makes sense.

The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics. Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate basic principles of common sense.

Fred D , November 26, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
Mind controlled Moron
WHAT , November 26, 2017 at 2:19 am GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Let him win in Syria"?

Dude, it`s like the first legit amusing line from you. Now bring another!

robt , November 26, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT
@Cyrano

Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly, many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"

Cyrano , November 26, 2017 at 3:54 am GMT
@robt

I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.

exiled off mainstreet , November 26, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
@DESERT FOX

The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or criminal themselves.

Sarah Toga , November 26, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT
Does Brennan have that dark calloused spot on his forehead yet from use of his "prayer rug" ?
DESERT FOX , November 26, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.

The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.

Anon , Disclaimer November 26, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

The US, Russian Federation, and the Nuland-Kagan revolution in Kiev in 2014:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media.

The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.

The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."

Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."

Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported "government" in Kiev came about naturally.

Anon , Disclaimer November 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:

"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99

"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!" http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml

"A leader of Ukrainian Jewry condemned the hosting in Lviv of a festival celebrating a Nazi collaborator on the anniversary of a major pogrom against the city's Jews." http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Ukraine-city-to-hold-festival-in-honor-of-Nazi-collaborator-498159

The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood Ukrainians." https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/

"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."

http://antisemitism.org.il/article/58386/ukraine-8211-desecration-jewish-cemetery-kiev

[Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

Highly recommended!
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.

For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S. administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.

The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump urged Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.

Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.

North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement with Pyongyang nearly impossible.

The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes. Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.

Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:

The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had cynically misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly matters of intense controversy . But invoking a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.

There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.

The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya.

Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own.

Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.

It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through diplomacy are so bleak.

Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.

Magdi , says: November 28, 2017 at 5:46 am

you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Herbert Heebert , says: November 28, 2017 at 7:47 am
A few points:

1. I think North Korea might also be looking at the example of Ukraine, and Russia's clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

2. It's silly to put so much weight on Baker's verbal assurance re: NATO expansion.

3. I would suggest Mr. Carpenter make a list of Russia's betrayals. But I have the impression he is not interested.

Viriato , says: November 28, 2017 at 9:25 am
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.

This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent years.

One point in particular jumped out at me:

"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."

This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine.

This

craigsummers , says: November 28, 2017 at 10:09 am
Mr. Carpenter

You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.

The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?

DOD , says: November 28, 2017 at 10:23 am
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
Michael Kenny , says: November 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!

Most seriously of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong, even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.

And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin, is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing, isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?

Will Harrington , says: November 28, 2017 at 12:58 pm
Herbert Heevert

The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government, supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.

Will Harrington , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Craig Summers

Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."

I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this, I don't know.

"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "

If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.

NoldorElf , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:31 pm
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.

At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.

One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what it wants.

Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

Jeeves , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:42 pm
What Craigsummers said.

And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym for "oral."

SteveM , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."

Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large percentage of the bill.

Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.

Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely, after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well done.)

b. , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:33 pm
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan 's precedent.

The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.

Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about "projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.

We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.

Janek , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter, as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".

The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.

SteveM , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35 million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?

Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it.

In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.

U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill.

Mark , says: November 28, 2017 at 3:00 pm
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym for "oral."

I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."

Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.

As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?

When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.

[Nov 22, 2017] Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections

Nov 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere , 22 November 2017 at 03:24 PM

Here is an analysis of how much Israel spent to influence USA elections
Washington - Which Nation is Really Interfering in the Electoral Process?
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ru/2017/07/washington-which-nation-is-really.html

[Nov 22, 2017] Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in the Ritz these days

Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
survey-of-disinfo , November 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@Erebus

Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in "the Ritz" these days. Want to sue Saudi Arabia for money because of 9/11? No problem, judge. Here are the names, here are the numbers, and here are the facts.

Disagree regarding multipolar order. The super structures for Globalism are untouched in all this theatrical displays. All parties seem to participate actively in key Globalist institutions.

Petrodollar is not and was never a component of NWO. It was an instrument of American supremacy. There are no planned superpowers in the NWO vision. Only Super-Institutions .

[Nov 18, 2017] State Department's New Victoria Nuland...is Just Like the Old Victoria Nuland

Notable quotes:
"... American Interest ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump Administration's top diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."

Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action by " midwifing ," in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.

It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The coup was bloody and divisive , resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into positions of power.

You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their failures. But the corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI borders that the Hungarian government has blocked Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.

Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when he directly challenged the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he said he was looking into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian territory.

Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that landed him the Oval Office. Right?

Wrong!

If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is funded largely by the US government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex. The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!

Mitchell's CEPA's recent greatest hits? " The Kremlin's 20 toxic tactics ," " Russian disinformation and anti-Western narratives in Romania: How to fight back? ," " Winning the Information War ," " Alliances and American greatness ," " Russia's historical distortions ," " What the Kremlin Fears Most ," and so on. You get the idea. The raison d'etre of the organization founded by the new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia is to foment a new (and very profitable) Cold War (and more?) with Russia.

Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.

The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade , and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was recently named executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views? Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell warns that, "From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening vulnerable US allies."

Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:

By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!

Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."

We are "retreating"?

So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:

The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
There is our new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia. Our top diplomat for Europe. The only solution is a military solution. President Trump. Elected to end the endless wars, to forge better relations with Russia, to roll-back an "outdated" NATO. President Trump has replaced Victoria Nuland with something far more dangerous and frightening. Heckuva job, there, Mr. President!
Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Nov 11, 2017] There are some indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier

This is from July, 2017, before the most recent revelations...
Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...) ..."
"... the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies ..."
"... offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads ..."
"... With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries. ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media. ..."
"... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
"... Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s. ..."
"... Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for terrorists - Trud

Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo

With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries.

---

With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of the issue deserves more scrutiny:

McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 12:56:46 PM | 5
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier. The third time is the Charm. I am reminded. McCain can do no wrong:

His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy); The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong) The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?

james | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:13 PM | 8
@5 likklemore ... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol...
ben | Jul 21, 2017 1:07:44 PM | 9
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here.
WorldBLee | Jul 21, 2017 1:11:43 PM | 10
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
Oui | Jul 21, 2017 2:29:43 PM | 12
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump.
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

  • there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
  • there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
  • the issue is now in front of a British court.

Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s.

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 21, 2017 3:02:30 PM | 13
Thanks, b. Love the lede...
350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud

What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".

I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."

This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 4:52:05 PM | 18
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed the dossier to Comey."

NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself

New York Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/john-mccain-i-gave-russia-blackmail-dossier-on-trump-to-fbi/

Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case to answer.


@kpax 17

Did I mis-read? McCain's cerebral?

fast freddy | Jul 21, 2017 8:20:34 PM | 29
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody that can damage him.
Yeah, Right | Jul 22, 2017 6:40:44 AM | 45
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding McCain's mental state.

So, yeah, brain tumour.

[Nov 11, 2017] Trump Points To Falsehoods In Russian Hacking Claims - Media Still Ignore Them

Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Nov 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them

During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. election.

There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman provided a screenshot of some relevant parts:

Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017

Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that Russia meddled last year

In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President Putin in Hanoi:

Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?

A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.

Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?

A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.

But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that.

Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired which headlines:

Here's the first evidence Russia used Twitter to influence Brexit

Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.

Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):

Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote

"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted AFTER the election

"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative AFTER the vote happened

Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.

Tannenhouser | Nov 11, 2017 2:15:01 PM | 1

"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else."

I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.

james | Nov 11, 2017 2:21:31 PM | 2
thanks b.. i 2nd @1 tannenhousers comment above..
wadosy | Nov 11, 2017 2:31:10 PM | 3
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?

I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking...

This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11

If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...

...they assumed the hackers were on their side

OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked or not

Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak, Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile, who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich

broders | Nov 11, 2017 2:33:17 PM | 4
the real question is : what is j.sessions doing ? and if nothing , why trump doesn't fire him ?
Brad | Nov 11, 2017 2:55:42 PM | 5
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.

Will Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian. ..and it wouldn't be exaggeration

Peter AU 1 | Nov 11, 2017 3:00:44 PM | 6
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
wadosy | Nov 11, 2017 3:05:39 PM | 7

well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...

whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked

donna is still saying, "the Russians dun it".

NemesisCalling | Nov 11, 2017 3:07:36 PM | 8
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate him."

Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.

Enemy of my enemy anyone?

P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade. I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.

PavewayIV | Nov 11, 2017 3:22:45 PM | 9
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away, it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary, DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.

When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You chum the waters and wait for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks do that themselves.

I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate, banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp' sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.

Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?

Laguerre | Nov 11, 2017 3:30:12 PM | 10
Was anything Trump did really illegal? It hasn't been demonstrated yet. The US does much the same in Russia.
h | Nov 11, 2017 3:31:16 PM | 11
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.

Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen as being built on nothing more than quicksand.

Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm

Then you have Joe Lauria's outstanding piece which lived less than 24 hours at HuffPo before being disappeared - http://raymcgovern.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CLEANOn-The-Origins-of-Russia-gate-_-HuffPost.pdf

And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT - http://raymcgovern.com/

Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel hacks put out.

These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap.

wadosy | Nov 11, 2017 3:36:47 PM | 12
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense

... ... ...

Muslim Dude | Nov 11, 2017 3:42:36 PM | 13
According to journalist, Liz Crokin and others online, Trump is pulling the biggest sting operation in history.

https://www.lizcrokin.com/hillaryclinton/mueller-president-trump-pulling-biggest-sting-history/

Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.

1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections as a figure who could help them.

2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.

3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over the Uranium sales with the Russians.

4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.

I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under Trump.

psychohistorian | Nov 11, 2017 3:49:19 PM | 14
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well? "

Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor

PavewayIV | Nov 11, 2017 4:30:10 PM | 15
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
Augustin L | Nov 11, 2017 4:32:46 PM | 16
The orange Chump is using diversionary tactics. Will the mafia Front goy thief disclose his extensive exposure/links to Russian and foreign banks ?

The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters and oligarchs like Mogilevich. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their plight...

renfro | Nov 11, 2017 5:10:26 PM | 17
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't doing that?

I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough by their herd leaders.

notheonly1 | Nov 11, 2017 5:31:12 PM | 18
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason: Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?

Hitler used gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.

With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber. The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's life systems.

Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless eaters on board.

Jack Oliver | Nov 11, 2017 6:03:23 PM | 19
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was - the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
karlof1 | Nov 11, 2017 6:27:43 PM | 20
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.

"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.

"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.

"So History in the making must be silenced." [Emphasis in original.] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48186.htm

Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!?

Temporarily Sane | Nov 11, 2017 6:30:23 PM | 21
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.

The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.

jayc | Nov 11, 2017 6:32:58 PM | 22
CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html
Peter AU 1 | Nov 11, 2017 6:37:08 PM | 23
karlof1 20

If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.

gut bugs galore | Nov 11, 2017 6:52:35 PM | 24
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
Krollchem | Nov 11, 2017 7:13:34 PM | 25
Educational Youtube videos on how the world works at "Rules for rulers"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

[Nov 11, 2017] Saudi Crown Prince Consolidates Power With Anti-Corruption Arrests

Charge in corruption is a standard instrument in regime change effort. Most widely used in in color revolutions. So this is a pretty old way tested in xUSSR republics.
Nov 10, 2017 | angrybearblog.com

Everybody is against corruption, so it has become the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies to engage in an anti-corruption drive, as Putin and Xi Jinping have done. Actually corrupt people may well be arrested, but somehow included in the set of those arrested are rivals of the leader who are conveniently disposed of.

likbez , November 10, 2017 8:53 pm

Barkley,

You should probably think in a wider framework of color revolution, not in the narrow framework of (possibly inflated) corruption charges. This is about de-legitimization, not about the corruption per se.

BTW the charge in corruption is a standard tool used in color revolutions. So it is far from only "the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies". It is more of an old way to induce "regime change".

It is perfectly applicable to political struggle in neoliberal societies as well as we see now with Trump. Probably even more, as "greed is good" morale imperative implies. Also provides opponents of Trump high moral ground to attach him and his entourage.

We can start analysis from Trump campaign against Hillary. If it would be more interesting to analyze the current anti-Trump campaign from this angle. Especially recent Robert Mueller's indictments. We can view then as a kind of attempt to "import" color revolution methods of "regime change" into the USA in order to depose Trump.

In other words boomerang eventually returns.

Several listed in from https://www.sott.net/article/334026-SOTT-Exclusive-A-Purple-Color-revolution-in-the-US-Learn-the-signs-of-color-revolutions ) tell-tell signs of regime change is probably applicable to anti-Trump campaign.

== quote ==

The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.

The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in America itself to serve the powers that be. The 12 steps are:

1.Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country

2.Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals

3.Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life

4.If the target country has unions, bribe them

5.Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution

6.Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do.

7.Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians and civilians involved

8.Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call upon all people with grievances to join

9.The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority

10.When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people

11.Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international community

12.Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising.

Barkley Rosser , November 10, 2017 11:34 pm

Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes. So in China Xi Joinping has arrested about 1.4 million people in the CPC on anti-corruption charges since he took power. No wonder nobody was voting against him at the recent party congress.

Then we have Erdogan in Turkkey, who has arrested something like 70,000. Now a lot of those have been busted for supposedly being part of the Gulenist copu attempt, but many have been buseed for couurption. Yeah, color places do it, but these are the places with the reallyi big numbers.

Oh, and the numbers arrested in Saudi Arabia apparently now exceed 200, and that is not coloar revolution, nor is what has gone on in the US.

likbez , November 11, 2017 9:32 pm

"Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes."

Not true. After Ukrainian Maidan color revolution (2014) there were wide purges on corruption charges of supporters of ousted President Yanukovich.

The current "Russiagate" color revolution against Trump recently started to concentrate on corruption charges too (Mueller's first indictments). They are definitely not wide. But they send a message to Trump and serve classic for color revolution de-legitimization purpose. In the context of the USA they probably do not actually need them to be wide as they can be amplified 100 or 1000 times by anti-Trump MSM.

See https://www.amazon.com/Power-Struggle-Politics-Nonviolent-Action/dp/087558070X/

In both cases there is a strong support within the intelligence agencies of the actions that can help to depose elected President (Brennan, Clapper, possibly Comey in case of the USA). Along with the goal to froze the possibility of détente with Russia. Which was achieved to the delight of all neocons.

There are also some discussions about the possibility that DNC hack was a false flag operation in classic color revolutions fashion. See

[Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

Highly recommended!
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent, reports Robert Parry.

The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as "useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."

Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail: Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."

The two subheads read: " Shipping Firm Links Commerce Chief to Putin 'Cronies' " and " Millions in Facebook Shares Rooted in Russian Cash ." The latter story, which meshes nicely with the current U.S. political pressure on Facebook and Twitter to get in line behind the New Cold War against Russia, cites investments by Russian Yuri Milner that date back to the start of the decade.

Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."

The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda."

We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.

Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."

In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.

Pressing the Tech Companies

Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017. Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.

Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."

Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."

The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm." But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto Twitter through a Moscow hotel.

Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet. It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.

Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were traced back to this organization was not made clear.

And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users, which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.

The Trouble with 'Trolling'

While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.

Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption, or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.

As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators. In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.

The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists, psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.

The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications."

Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of the story to the outside world.

During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then, the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.

Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.

Swinging the Social Media Club

The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which taught activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.

A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.

While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger – and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise. In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.

One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without fear of beheading.

Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.

The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense" group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was awarded the short-documentary Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.

Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own medicine.

After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."

However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.

The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump – although no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia "hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies any meddling.

Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy. The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

A Manchurian Candidate?

Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.

Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something, Facebook reported $100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this very large lake after Clinton had already lost.

So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).

The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could have reached billions of people.

Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.

Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference in American elections and policymaking.

For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history only gained The New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier volumes of evidence as "rumors."

In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially doom Carter's reelection hopes.

There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.

However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme, was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."

Israeli Influence

And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians.

If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress and count how often Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?

Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised, were treated largely as non-stories.

Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now – with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?

The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.

After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.

Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.

The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons.

A Smokescreen for Repression

There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen for clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."

The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda."

The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.

I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political ad criticizing New York City.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm

I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that calls itself America.

When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that, that is enough said.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm

This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.

One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions. The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.

The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted "discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."

The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.

Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/03/pers-n03.html

Joe Tedesky , November 7, 2017 at 12:32 am

Thanks for the informative link Danny.

Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.

Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911 one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed, and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.

All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.

Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.

Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm

Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger! Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping fascism have sure got it backward.

Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm

Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg -- to your two names.

Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago.

It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

mike k , November 6, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real intention.

Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Great essay.

But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed by the neocons.

But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT, the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake – something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart" and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart" Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's seemingly impossible victory.

Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm

How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.

Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm

Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the last one?

I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry points out here yet again.

As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.

Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with me as well.

Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:58 pm

That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?

The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm

I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate.

Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences: that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.

Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our political stage in the USA is a madhouse.

Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all.

Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems, they could get in trouble even more.

I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely abhorrent, in my view.

Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.

occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am

Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.

In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998). Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller Investigations.

Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm

You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism. Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his sterling reputation for me.

Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm

If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?

anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.

Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm

It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine.

At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order.

So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious, the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution, and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going to die in the fifties.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Truman started it. And he used it very well.

THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland

This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes -- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.

The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/richard-m-freeland/the-truman-doctrine-and-origins-of-mccarthyism/

Howard Mettee , November 6, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Bob,

You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era, when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:

Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!

Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm

Howard,

I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.

David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm

I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.

David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm

I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.

Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm

David G –

They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries".

It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology. Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!

Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:53 pm

Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.

I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm

You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm

Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact "last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/facebook-twitter-join-first-draft-coalition/

Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.

In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth and facts is called "verification".

The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations' zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:45 pm

The Russia-gate "witch-hunt" has graduated from McCarthyism to full Monty Pythonism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:41 pm

You get the gold star for best comment today.

Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US plan to dismember the Syrian state.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Realist , November 6, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law (Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.

From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings." Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within its borders.

In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?

I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?" President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening day of the movie.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.

Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm

In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).

Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States

But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive, this is completely absurd.

McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia linked", they have become right-wing extremists.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm

"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."

Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine. The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead, Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply, to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos to this minister for screening the film.

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-film-sparks-protest-in-marblehead/article_0b075cbc-c2ae-5d46-916a-24eed79d30cd.html

http://cdn.field59.com/SALEMNEWS/ebb60114f782c4213f068bf0a39a4a46451ed871_fl9-360p.mp4

Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:03 am

The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016) examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD7mOyfclIk

This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's favor.

Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts, and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.

Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.

The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly right-wing policies.

Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am

Abe –

The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.

Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:57 pm

It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.

As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre, she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just a ploy in the scam.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."

And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.

Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm

You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm

In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)

Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm

On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".

Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:

"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"

CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup Poll dropped and was never to rise again.

Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm

Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the 50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.

geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am

I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow I didn't get to it.

john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am

So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with you simply by calling them the enemy.

Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am

John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner, mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University, and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held in December in Silicon Valley.

john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever. If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are due for rendition anytime now!! LOL

Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.

My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.

The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)

Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm

Maybe some technical problem on the site.

Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before hitting the "post comment" button.

In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.

K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting. Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing. The media is inept. Very bizarre times.

Patricia Schaefer , November 7, 2017 at 10:14 am

Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.

Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.

To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking "What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.

If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal. He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.

That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was doing!

Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?

So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she lost.

Gary , November 7, 2017 at 3:16 pm

After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes, illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with' or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.

Realist , November 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Should this give us hope? https://sputniknews.com/us/201711071058899018-trump-cia-meet-whistleblower-russian-hacking/ Trump ordered Pompeo to meet with Binney of VIPS re "Russian hacking." Is it time for the absurd Russia-gate narrative to finally be publicly deconstructed? Or is that asking too much?

Skip Scott , November 8, 2017 at 9:04 am

I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo, Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.

Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm

Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least. The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in decline for four decades or so now.

From Robert Parry's article:

"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.

Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME and many countries in Africa.

Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.

As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era. It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?

Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm

If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?

CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm

Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!

I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would make money for the Media.

The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.

This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.

The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential election.

Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations who would profit from a new Cold War.

Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.

CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Things not talked about:

1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.

The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again) in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.

Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.

It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.

It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under the present administration.

It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders who will pave the path forward to a better future.

Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power structure and conspires to deceive us all.

Jessica K , November 8, 2017 at 9:43 am

Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others (but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy, has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals, political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.

It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere. I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because "Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".

Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being pulled on the sheeple.

Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly as the moderator will delete it within the hour.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-timeline-of-the-trump-russia-scandal-w511067

[Nov 08, 2017] Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about alternative versions involving CIA as the main culprit. This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth

Arlen Specter - Wikipedia Arlen Specter (February 12, 1930 – October 14, 2012) was an American lawyer and politician who served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter was a Democrat from 1951 to 1965,[1][2][3] then a Republican from 1965 until 2009, when he switched back to the Democratic Party. First elected in 1980, he represented his state in the Senate for 30 years.
Cyril Wecht - Wikipedia Cyril Harrison Wecht (born March 20, 1931) is an American forensic pathologist. He has been a consultant in numerous high-profile cases, but is perhaps best known for his criticism of the Warren Commission's findings concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy. See books: Into EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder of JFK; November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination
Notable quotes:
"... "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory. ..."
"... (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

anon, Disclaimer September 6, 2016 at 2:10 am GMT

deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.

one example: book opens:

"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them. This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth. "

At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts, has not given up. Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,

"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.

Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy aide, delivered a speech. The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. " http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter

Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices against and continue to do so.

That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.

(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/

[Nov 07, 2017] Sobchak for president

Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , November 5, 2017 at 5:13 am


-- Maxikins, soon you'll be sleeping with the president of Russia.
-- Ksyush, but are you sure that Putin will want to sleep with me?

[Nov 05, 2017] The military industrial complex did make a killing in Iraq though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

Nov 05, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Scalpel , Website November 3, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT

@Randal

"Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. "

Everybody knows the motivation was to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq no longer possesses WMD's so the US won! Small caveat. There were never WMD's so the war was unnecessary. The military industrial complex did make a killing though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

[Nov 04, 2017] Duty, Honor, Atrocity

Iraq war was the war for oil... Bush was just a puppet.
Notable quotes:
"... Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan. ..."
Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

In George W. Bush's home state of Texas, if you are an ordinary citizen found guilty of capital murder, the mandatory sentence is either life in prison or the death penalty. If, however, you are a former president of the United States responsible for initiating two illegal wars of aggression, which killed 7,000 U.S. servicemen and at least 210,000 civilians , displaced more than 10 million people from their homes, condoned torture, initiated a global drone assassination campaign, and imprisoned people for years without substantive evidence or trial in Guantanamo Bay, the punishment evidently is to be given the Thayer Award at West Point.

On October 19th, George W. Bush traveled to the United States Military Academy, my alma mater , to receive the Sylvanus Thayer Award at a ceremony hosted by that school's current superintendent and presented on behalf of the West Point Association of Graduates. The honor is "given to a citizen whose outstanding character, accomplishments, and stature in the civilian community draw wholesome comparison to the qualities for which West Point strives."

... ... ...

Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan.

SolontoCroesus , October 23, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
Half right.

Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards, he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.
But, the seed does not fall far from the tree (from which both should hang).

Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist and teaches/counsels ethics and morality to West Pointers and helps military personnel deal with post-engagement moral issues. Kilner published this essay a few days ago:

MORAL MISCONCEPTIONS: FIVE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS CONFUSE MORAL JUDGMENTS ON WAR

https://www.ausa.org/articles/moral-misconceptions-five-flawed-assumptions-confuse-moral-judgments-war

imo nearly every argument Kilner makes to refute the "5 misconceptions" are childishly simplistic; some rely on distortions or omissions of key facts.
For example, Kilner writes:

Misconception 4
Motives must be pure: The 1990–91 First Gulf War was a paradigm case of a just war. Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the U.S. and other countries assisted Kuwaiti forces in liberating their country and re-establishing their government. Critics of the war claim that the United States' involvement was motivated by a desire to keep oil prices low. Even if they are right, would it matter?

No, the Gulf War was NOT a "paradigm case of a just war." Just war theory / Jus Ad Bellum Convention holds that the just war must:

have just cause, be a last resort, be declared by a proper authority, possess right intention, have a reasonable chance of success, and the end must be proportional to the means used. . . http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2

First of all, if you have to lie to gain assent to wage war, then any moral claim to having a just cause is null.
Incubator babies??

In almost every other way the Persian Gulf war waged by George H W Bush violated jus ad bellum principles but especially:

War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause – all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war.

As Vernon Loeb recorded -- and the George H W Bush archives as examined by historian Jeff Engel affirm, King Hussein of Jordan, in concert with other Arab leaders, had achieved a resolution to which Saddam would have agreed, and repeatedly asked Bush to let the Arabs take care of their own conflict. Likewise, Mikhael Gorbachev persisted to the point of annoyance in calling Bush and urging him NOT to go to war to resolve the conflict. Bush shouted at him and ignored his advice.

All other options had NOT been exhausted.

The Berlin wall had fallen, USSR and Gorbachev no longer had power to counterbalance US power; George H W Bush was King of the Mountain and he wielded his power recklessly. The world is still reeling -- and hundreds of thousands are dead, because of his reckless disregard of thousand-year old principles of Justice in War.

It's astonishing that an ethicist who teaches West Pointers did not make this basic analysis.

In summary, if Lt. Col. Pete Kilner is representative of the "moral foundation" provided West Point cadets, the institution -- and the United States that, according to a Gallup poll, trusts the military more than any other institution in USA -- are in deeper trouble than Erik Erdstrom comprehends.

reiner Tor , October 23, 2017 at 8:06 pm GMT
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but decent person, manipulated by others. I didn't know for example his eager participation in the speechmaking/lecture circus. This mental picture has changed somewhat in recent years, but I remained greatly ignorant of a lot of details. Now these two articles about him shed some light how he really is a piece of shit, just like the others. Maybe not so extremely dumb, though.
willem1 , October 23, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
This article is (sadly) on the money. However, it is just another illustration revealing the mockery that most such prestigious awards have made of themselves in recent years. Awarding Barack Obama the Nobel Prize was one recent instance of this – a president that at one point had us engaged in seven wars at once. But at least in that case, it can be claimed that the award was aspirational, as the totality of his "accomplishment" did not become a matter of record until after the award was made. In the case described above, the honor is being awarded with full knowledge of the recipient's history.
SolontoCroesus , October 23, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Trump's brutal comment to the dead soldier in Florida was on the money: That's what you signed up for. It would be gratifying to think that Trump knew exactly what he was saying; Scott Adams thinks Trump is a master communicator. Conversely, tragic to hear the Florida Rep gripe that she was so upset at Trump's callousness because she "had mentored the young man and helped him get in the military." That's just like helping you get a job with Goldman Sachs, right? No risk, no moral quandaries. re Lt Col Kilner -- he's Chhristiian: here's a piece he wrote for Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/december-web-only/war-is-hell-but-it-can-be-heaven.html

War Is Hell But It Can Be Heaven

peterAUS , October 23, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Thank you for that link. A VERY GOOD article. A gem really. Some parts I found particularly good:

This insight is that combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven. At the same time, the dehumanizing suffering and apparent absence of God that characterize a war zone instruct veterans on how awful human existence can be; there's a reason we say "war is hell."

Soldiers are pawns in a conflict started by others.

And for the first time in most soldiers' lives, we encounter undisguised evil.

Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known only to the veterans who have experienced it.

The greater the dangers and adversity that soldiers face and overcome, the greater those bonds. Some soldiers become closer to each other than to their own families.

, it explains why soldiers want to be deployed. We're not warmongers; we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors. Second, it explains why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.

We've seen what humans are capable of, for better and for worse. Reflecting on our experiences of war, we are alternately inspired and appalled. We have glimpsed what was previously unimaginable: the happiness of heaven, the desolation of hell.

Compliments to Lt.Col Kilner.

wraith67 , October 24, 2017 at 10:06 am GMT
I'm not sure why that's supposed to be surprising. Leadership across swathes of institutions has abdicated their responsibility to lead or govern and instead adopted baby-sitting and appeasement.
Pete Kilner , Website November 3, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Solonto: You've posted more than 2,600 comments on this website? "You" are likely a group of Russians working full time to sow discord. But let's charitably assume that you're a real person. Your knowledge of the history of the 1990-91 Gulf War is terrible. I assume that you were too young to remember the events leading up to it. Watch President George H. W. Bush's speech to the world and learn:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?15723-1/president-bush-announces-beginning-persian-gulf-air-war

That may be the best explanation in terms of Just War you'll ever hear a politician give. He checks every block of jus ad bellum.

Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and taught ethics for 20 years. I may "style" myself a comedian or good dancer, but I'm pretty well-credentialed as an ethicist.

Pete Kilner , November 3, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Thanks, Peter. If you want to read more, I have a column on professional ethics in Army Magazine. You can access my articles at: https://www.ausa.org/people/lt-col-pete-kilner

Cheers,
Pete

LauraMR , November 4, 2017 at 4:34 am GMT
So what.

Obama turned war itself into a prolonged assassination campaign via remote drone and he awarded himself every conceivable medal. Previous administrations successfully circumvented genocide as a crime against humanity by raining annihilation from the skies. Which part of the government of our country do you fail to understand?

Reg Cćsar , November 4, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

"This past Summer, after months of private discussions about POW treatment at Gitmo, the Red Cross openly declared the US Government in violation of the Geneva Conventions based upon first hand reports from Cuba "

Why doesn't the Red Cross do something useful, like making the same claim about Puerto Rico? Then we'd be forced to grant them independence. It's way overdue.

Reg Cćsar , November 4, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards, he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.

So how is he different from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry S Truman, who are considered heroes?

utu , November 4, 2017 at 5:25 am GMT
@Pete Kilner

I was around 1990/91 and I followed what was happening. I do not agree with SolontoCroesus take on Bush and Gulf War. I already once had exchanged comments with him about it, I think, but my points did not make a dent.

Bush never looked thrilled to go to this war. I had impression that his arms had to be twisted. He seemed like he would not mind letting Saddam Hussein slide. It was his meeting with Margaret Thatcher in Aspen that changed everything. Bush built broad coalition including many Arab and Muslim nations and went to war. He head to give $500 millions to Israel to keep them away and not retaliating against Iraq in order to not upset Arab allies in the coalition.

The war was won. Bush did not go to Bagdad but only liberated Kuwait. It was reported in papers that his popularity hit 90% which was 20% more than what Hitler got after the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, as I remember thinking this at that time.

In summer 1991 Bush decided to use his political capital and tried to say no Israel illegal settlements by holding money slated for Israel. Yitzhak Shamir got furious and the Lobby attacked. Everybody was against hime. Most people did not know what was happening. Bush backed off and instead of turning to American people and leveling with them on what was going on he only complained that he was all alone in WH.

It was decided (I do not know how, when and where and by whom but it was decided nevertheless) that Bush could not be trusted with the 2nd term. He did not take advantage of the golden opportunity to occupy Iraq and then he had audacity to challenge Israel which last time happened in early summer 1993 by JFK when said no to the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. So everything was done what had to be done for him to lose. And he knew that it would be so. He did not fight. He got impatient with the campaign and looked at his watch during the debate to show his disdain. He had no chance to win. Ross Perot played the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election to deprive Taft the 2nd term. Unlike Roosevelt Ross Perot probably did not know what role he was cast to play.

Why Bush did what he did? Why he did not occupy Iraq? Why he challenged Israel? My take is that he really did not want this war. That he really believed that after the wall coming down and Soviet Union falling apart America can change the course and start reducing military spending. He seemed to really believe in the peace dividends. The end of the Cold War was his greatest achievement and it was ruined by Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait. So the most important question is to find out who TF whispered to Saddam Hussein's ear to convince him that he will get away with his attack on Kuwait? The same people who wanted Iraq destroyed who eventually had it destroyed 12 years later and all those who did not want peace dividends and who feared the cuts in military spending? I think Bush knew who was really behind Hussain? Who screwed up his vision of post Cold War peace, who deprived him of his legacy. So he said no to Israel when he had the highest approval rating in recent history but then he chickened out. He was intimidated by something. In retrospect he was not a bad guy but he wasted possibly the last opportunity to have America extricated from the iron grip of the Lobby.

jilles dykstra , November 4, 2017 at 6:47 am GMT
Just read the chapter on the Vietnam war by Howard Zinn A Peoples History of the USA. Or read an Eisenhower letter, written after WWII, 'we should have killed much more Germans'. James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
jilles dykstra , November 4, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus

As Chomsky said ' according to Neurenberg standards any USA president should have been hanged'.

Realist , November 4, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT
@reiner Tor

"Maybe not so extremely dumb, though."

Oh he's stupid alright. His cerebral prowess is being burnished to further the Deep State cause. Like father like son.

Greg Bacon , Website November 4, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

The United States Military Academy is, or at least should be, a steward of American military values

But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liars with Operation Inherent Resolve, the gangster outfit that is overseeing the 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' in SW Asia and the ME, bomb to smithereens civilians on a daily basis, then get in front of the cameras and LIE that they didn't do it, it was those Rooskies. Then, when they're outed with evidence, they LIE again, promising to investigate and that's the last you'll hear of the latest American-made mass murder.
Aren't all those command types at Operation Butcher Muslims, sorry, Inherent Resolve West Point or Annapolis graduates, that lie, cheat, steal and murder on a daily basis, yet they get their chests festooned with medals from a grateful nation for being basically, unhinged psycho-killers, so you see, West Point is upholding American values.

RealAmerican , November 4, 2017 at 10:56 am GMT
I have read elsewhere that Mr. Bush had the largest contingent of rabbis in his administration, as advisors behind the scenes, to provide him with moral guidance. What is a person to make of that? Was he that obtuse?
Thank you Mr. Edstrom!
WorkingClass , November 4, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

The Thayer may be one of the most important awards that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Not anymore. Sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize. Dark humor.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT
@peterAUS

Thanks for posting those excerpts.

Most of them annoy the bleep outta me because they seem like more of the sappy (unctuous even),over romanticized, self aggrandizing, claptrap that we've come to expect from functionaries of the state.

This, type of nonsense, in particular, galls me.:

Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known only to the veterans who have experienced it.

What a disgustingly hollow load of bulshit that is! Oh, but the rest of us, who haven't experienced the "sublime beauty" of war, aren't counted amongst the anointed elite who know things the rest of us mere mortals don't.

"Sublime beauty?"

Who do you think yer kidding? I was a grunt (volunteer, not drafted) in Vietnam, and I never saw any beauty in war, sublime, mundane, or otherwise.

Here's how a man with integrity views the military.:

"Military life in general depraves men. It places them in conditions of complete idleness, that is, absence of all rational and useful work; frees them from their common human duties, also puts them into conditions of servile obedience to those of higher ranks than themselves."

― Leo Tolstoy Resurrection Or, The Awakening, 1899
In 1851 Tolstoy and his older brother went to the Caucasus where he joined the Russian army as an artillery officer.
In 1854, during the Crimean War Tolstoy transferred to Wallachia to fight against the French, British and Ottoman Empire and defend Sevastopol.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1872

Here's what military establishments are really about; I wonder if they deal with this at West Point, or in "ethics" classes.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465

Standing armies are un-American, and no amount of cloyingly romantic slight of hand with the truth will change it. Here's all one needs to know about the "ethics" of state sponsored terrorism.:

Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character."

Mercy Otis Warren, Revolution-era historian,
History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1872

Ethics my tush!:

" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."

Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

So, you see, the truth is nothing new. Anyone with a sense of ethics wouldn't try to smear lipstick on a pig.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 11:59 am GMT
@Greg Bacon

But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around the world.

True, but one could argue that Lincoln was the first of the worst. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR took hypocrisy and mockery of "American values" to new depths and it's been downhill since then.

We have to face the fact that none of us is fit to wield the levers of so much power. To think otherwise is positively deranged.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT
@Pete Kilner

Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and taught ethics for 20 years.

I must tell you that the comment, whether snide or not, is spot on.

Your other credentials are worth about as much as Bush's award or O-bomb-a's "peace" prize, and any adult should know that.

What're the ethics of farces?

n230099 , November 4, 2017 at 12:19 pm GMT
Still, as criminal as Bush and Obama's actions were, between Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson, there are way more Americans dead for nothing than these pikers killed.
DESERT FOX , November 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm GMT
Bush jr. and Bush sr. are both war criminals and were front men for the Zionists who really control this country and both were complicit with Israel and the deep state in 911.

They are evil incarnate with satan and also their henchman Cheney, straight from hell.

TG , November 4, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT
Whatever one thinks of Trump, one must appreciate the public service that he did in utterly humiliating Jeb! Bush and pretty much putting a stake in the heart of the Bush political dynasty. One takes ones guilty pleasures where one finds them.
jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

All of your comment is true and I'd like to add that the fetid scent of Zionist sympathies can be detected at least as far back as Wilson and FDR as well, and probably even goes further back.

This quote is interesting though I do not mean to conflate Judaism with Zionism.:

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism. The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.

"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, p. 114)

This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

-Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question, First Published: February, 1844 in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher; https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

EliteCommInc. , November 4, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT
A someone very fond of the Bush family, I have to admit, as someone who opposed both conflict (one outright) the other as to scale and purpose) this article is a very heavy indictment, less of the executive but of members of congress, the foreign policy establishment and the military advocates for invasion (men and women alike).

I have always thought that Pres Bush ignored his bet instincts on the matter and was ill advised. I don't know what recompense the country will garner for our actions, but I don't think it has yet come. We need to pull up and consider the dark space into which are knee-jerking our way into.

-- –

However, I don't think this is about Pres. Bush or even a stamp of approval on needless and careless interventions as much as it an attempt to wedge the military against Pres Trump or tangentially express discomfit by some in the higher echelons with the Pres.

Deeply appreciated this a article. No argument against those invasion penetrated the cloud of revenge the country was bent on exacting. And it is deeply troubling – when the case against invasion was so blatantly clear.

anonymous , Disclaimer November 4, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

At West Point, it's still possible to believe that we are fighting in the interests of the Afghan people

If that's true then they are mentally deficient. Mercenaries and the mentally defective working under the leadership of the morally corrupt, the perfect dance partners.

jacques sheete , November 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT
I apologize to those who may find my comments excessive, but some of the attitudes expressed here need to be confronted. I regret that I can't do it in person.

To those who postulate such insubstantial, quasi-profound, faux-poetic pornography, if not swinishly orgasmic, fanciful hooey as:

combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven.

we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors . Second, it explains why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell , our everyday lives can feel like limbo.

Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.

I say that Aristophanes, to name just one, saw through the self adulating humbug, millennia ago.

SAUSAGE-SELLER
you wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist , that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.

- Aristophanes, The Knights, 424 BC

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/knights.html

Mulegino1 , November 4, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all fit in the category of war criminal, and were there such a thing as authentic and impartial international justice, they could all be in the dock of a new Nuremberg Tribunal – albeit one without the kangaroo court and vae victis characteristics of the eponymous one.
Ris_Eruwaedhiel , November 4, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT
@peterAUS

George Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and his dad served as a naval aviator during WWII. Quite a difference. At one time, the people who started wars fought in them. The last English king to serve in combat was the much-maligned Richard III, killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. James IV of Scotland was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513. George II was commander at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743.

Prince Harry saw service in Afghanistan and Andrew in the Falklands. So, the denigrated Royals have a better track record than the elites in a democracy. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate the West.

Ris_Eruwaedhiel , November 4, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT
@utu

I remember James Baker's comment: "F -- the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway."

MEexpert , November 4, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT
Bush II could be called a war criminal by reason of stupidity. The real culprit is the bastard standing next to him in the picture. He controlled George W. Bush and was the real President. To this day, he continues to push for war against Iran.
Don Bacon , November 4, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT
Blaming Bush for starting wars is sort of like blaming bin Laden for 9/11 or Putin for Hilary's defeat. There were a lot more people involved in recent and ongoing US wars, including many people from the "opposing" party, Joe Biden and Al Gore come to mind.
anonymous , Disclaimer November 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but

He's obviously no intellectual and it's unlikely he's ever read any book on his own. He appears to lack curiosity whatever his mental level may be. His speeches, like everyone else, are written by others and just simply read as an actor reads their lines. However, his job was to deliver and that he did in spades. He ratcheted up the security state to a historic level and diverted trillions from the US treasury for the biggest gravy train ever. It's an income transfer scheme, from the masses to the upper classes, all while scaring everyone with nonexistent hobgoblins. He did nothing about unchecked illegal immigration, giving his constituency, the haves and the have-mores, their cheap labor. Historians will argue as to who the worst president of all time was and Bush's name will figure prominently. He'll be seen as one of the downward turning points in American history, a person who ruined what was left of American credibility and pride. He had a lot of enablers though, and did not act alone, standing astride a mountain of bones. So, smart or not, the evil nature of this man will continue to cast it's shadow for years to come.

Carlton Meyer , Website November 4, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
I checked the web and found this award often goes to the most despicable neocon in the nation. I expect McCain to win next year.

Sylvanus Thayer Award Recipients

I stopped with Tom Brokaw because that seems odd to most. Watch this funny and insightful Jimmy Dore clip about how Brokaw was a no newsman, but a Pentagon bootlicker, hence the award.

sample , November 4, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT
I think what we can all be thankful is the fact that we are no longer dependant on the NY time/Washington Post etc to see the World through their prizes l
europeasant , November 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT
President Bush may have been dumb or naive or he may have been smart. It's difficult to know what a person really thinks. The Iraq war was a mistake but Bush the Younger also pushed for implementation of other policies which look to be highly dubious. Does anyone remember "No Child left Behind" or "The Housing Gap"? These two policies were hairbrained to say the least. Only a foolish person could ever believe in such nonsense. He truly believed that we were all created equal, he was they ultimate champion of the "Blank Slate" theory. A delusional fool who I actually voted for in 2000.
Yes I think he was "A True Believer" in Social Justice causes.
Ris_Eruwaedhiel , November 4, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.

utu , November 4, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel

I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.

Rather not. Zinn on one of his last missions as a member of USAF bomber crew was sent to bomb with napalm large groupings of German soldiers who were just awaiting to surrender somewhere in northern France. The front line past them and was much further West. He did not like it at all. He thought that the only purpose of the mission was to test how the new napalm worked.

nsa , November 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm GMT
West Point? Isn't that some place where the Jooies indoctrinate their latest crop of servile Goy Gurkhas? Change those posters to: Uncle Samuel Wants You with a pic of Samuel in his beanie pointing a bony finger out at you, the suckers.
J1234 , November 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT

George W. Bush Receives a Character Award at West Point

He's a character alright.

peterAUS , November 4, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel

Agree.

And, you definitely have a point here:

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate the West.

Now, there is one country which adheres to that rule a bit:Israel. Interesting, isn't it? Easy, especially on sites like this, to heap abuse on, say, Netanyahu. Just from Wikipedia, though:

Netanyahu joined the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, and became a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit . Netanyahu took part in many missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968) and Operation Isotope (1972), during which he was shot in the shoulder . Netanyahu fought on the front lines in the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.[3][4] Netanyahu achieved the rank of captain before being discharged.

You have to give them: they got that right. Now, we'll see, say, 20 replies with 20 links each about .. .them . Will keep the article busy though. Interested in topic could just skip them.

edNels , November 4, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT
Thanks for the article about how the elite soldiers are morally conditioned in these days.

Did they teach anything about General Smedley Butler? Some of his second thoughts he had?

What's the matter with these academics who run everthing now, are they senile?

Or, much worse, (maybe not though,) there is a policy on high, to effect the intentional dilution, and then destruction of standards. Prominently, auspicious prizes given to idiots and worse scoundrels! what's that do to the mental and moral health of the youths, will they wise up and see through it and not show up?
No, just replaced with a lower order, who will be more monstrous .

All this decay of stuff is everywhere, who benefits Cui Bono? They don't need smart soldiers what with robots and AI etc. and the real work is in dumbing down the peeps, for the eventual enclosures .

Antiwar7 , November 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
Really well written. I honor the author's service in writing this piece.

Also, I thank him for pointing out that W. Bush shares another thing with Adolf Hitler, besides war-mongering: painting.

Sane Left Libertarian , November 4, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT
Most of it's already been said above, but we've been a war nation for more than a generation. Mr. Bush's predecessor bombed Iraq for years. Bush himself (or Cheney or whoever) turned it into an official and seemingly permanent war, using what are now known to be bold-faced lies. Torture as a matter of routine also started during Cheney's reign. Nobel Peace Prize Obama ramped us up to 6 or 7 wars, normalized drone murder, and in his usual unctuous way told us to stop harping on Abu Graib ("It's important we don't get too sanctimonious"). Now Mr. Trump is starting/threatening even more war, complete with nukes, and bragging about the torture.

My point is that someone we don't even see is calling the shots, for all of them. These guys on TV just work for them, and are paid handsomely. The awards they get mean even less than their elections. I don't see us (the proletariat, wage slaves, trying to raise a family) ever even figuring out what's going on, much less doing anything about it.

lavoisier , Website November 4, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT
"The former president deserves a cold metal bench in a stockade awaiting trial, not an award and a warm round of applause from the academy. No coffee table books featuring his paintings -- a perverse form of macabre exhibitionism -- will atone for his actions. If West Point and its Association of Graduates want to maintain any credible pretense of adhering to the values they claim to espouse, they should revoke the most recent Thayer Award immediately."

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Excellent essay. What has happened to West Point to act this way?? No one with any sense could think of Bush as anything other than a moron at best, a traitorous moron at worst. There must be an explanation–FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[Nov 02, 2017] The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative by Scott Ritter

The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats' go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery? If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard? ..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't. The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election. It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis. ..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other. They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.

Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on purported money laundering. On Monday, indictments were filed against former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.

But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress and a special prosecutor.

The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele.

According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself," Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."

Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.

An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA.

Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream media primetime.

The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats' go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign.

It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end of the election cycle.

Perkins Coie is also home to Michael Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach, and, on May 4, 2016, he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.

When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report detailing the intrusion, ominously named "Bears in the Midst."

This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with a spokesperson from either the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.

It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele

Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm assets require the approval of either the management or executive committee of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).

But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports" cobbled together from what Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.

The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."

These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22, when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors," Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the 2016 Aspen Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration, Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.

According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."

This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution, shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community. Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that was used.

The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C," a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.

The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August 2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Youknowho , says: October 30, 2017 at 11:09 pm

The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery? If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent" then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
SpecialAgentA , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:00 am
Was it a 'leak' or a 'hack'? Both terms are used here, almost interchangeably, but isn't that an essential issue to explain and clarify?
balconesfault , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:35 am
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Bob Salsa , says: October 31, 2017 at 10:48 am
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion with Nazi U-boat commanders.
Michael Kenny , says: October 31, 2017 at 11:28 am
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
David G. , says: October 31, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian actors who would like to undermine Putin.

To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016 US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?

Donald (the left leaning one) , says: October 31, 2017 at 12:42 pm
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. "

This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.

In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.

m , says: October 31, 2017 at 1:16 pm
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling. Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
a person who once spoke to a Russian but regrets it now , says: October 31, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
Laramie , says: October 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.

Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.

November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.

So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.

But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were complicit in the misdeeds.

We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.

We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.

We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.

What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.

Carolinatarheel , says: October 31, 2017 at 3:35 pm
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying Russians for smear documents! America First!
Nick , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:06 pm
I love how the origins of the project (Free Beacon/Paul Singer) are merely a footnote in this terribly written piece.
Jake , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump. Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others have all lied.
Quek , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:40 pm
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't. The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Cjones1 , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?

Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely smeared the Trump team?

Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.

Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied on collaboration with Russian officials.

Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller, participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.

In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.

Zardoz , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:13 pm
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server on which she did all of her State Department business.

But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.

Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.

But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.

Don Juan , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration covering up lawlessness.
CapitalistRoader , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:49 pm
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
swb , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Virginia Farmer , says: October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
MM , says: October 31, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:

"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."

In the same interview:

"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign, reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."

Did everybody catch that?

In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic political opponent.

But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent. I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in its entire 10-year existence.

Absolutely gorgeous

Zardoz , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:01 pm
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server on which she did all of her State Department business.

But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.

Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.

But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.

Lenny , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:10 pm
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign government, you have some screws lose.

Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal offence.

The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC , and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.

Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company

JR , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:31 pm
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?

But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).

jlee67 , says: October 31, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right.
b. , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:21 pm
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"

If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press, Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.

Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.

The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation, allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this blighted nation for the next four years.

It's morons all the way down.

Central Virginia Cantor Ejector! , October 31, 2017 at 11:16 pm
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile."

Right on! "Virginia Farmer" for President!

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: November 1, 2017 at 12:09 am
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"

I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.

The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other. They have them both in their pocket.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: November 1, 2017 at 12:14 am
M --

Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?

VikingLS , says: November 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm
@Donald ( the left leaning one)

In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.

BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.

Cynthia McLean , says: November 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.

[Nov 01, 2017] NATO Criticism of Russias Ukraine Policy Is Answered by Putin by Eric ZUESSE

Notable quotes:
"... What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this? ..."
"... Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup. ..."
"... There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe. ..."
"... They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it. ..."
"... What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements." ..."
"... Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned. ..."
"... It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence. ..."
"... Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent? ..."
"... I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations. ..."
"... Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing! ..."
"... I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation. ..."
"... Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations. ..."
"... On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory. ..."
"... You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for? ..."
"... And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions. ..."
"... You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future? ..."
"... It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy ..."
"... Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so? ..."
"... All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans. ..."
"... What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″ ..."
"... if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

A NATO supporter criticized Russia's President Vladimir Putin for Russia's Ukraine policy, on October 19th, at the Valdai Discussion Club's annual meeting in Sochi, and Putin fired back with his most detailed statement to-date, describing the overthrow in February 2014 of Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, as having been a "coup" by the West, especially by the EU (which he blamed for it, rather than blame the US).

Asle Toje, a Norwegian supporter of the NATO anti-Russian military alliance, had raised this subject when he asked Putin :

What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this?

Putin replied:

Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup.

On 4 February 2014 the agent whom US President Barack Obama had tasked to plan the coup, Hillary Clinton's longtime friend Victoria Nuland, instructed the US Ambassador in Ukraine whom to appoint to run Ukraine as soon as the coup would be culminated, which occurred 23 days later, on 27 February: "Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience the governing experience he's the" person to appoint , she told the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

And "Yats" Yatsenyuk got the post, which was the appointment as Prime Minister, because Obama wanted the rabidly anti-Russian Yulia Tymoshenko to win Ukraine's Presidency in an election, so as to be able to describe the change-of-government as being 'democratic' i.e., 'elected', not imposed (as was the appointment of "Yats"). However, Tymoshenko had too much of a public reputation as being a US agent (and grifter ), for her to win; and, so, Petro Poroshenko won the 'election' instead.

It was an 'election' in all of the majority Ukrainian-speaking areas of Ukraine, but without allowing to vote the populations in many of the majority Russian-speaking regions, where the man whom Obama overthrew, Yanukovych, had won by over 75% of the votes, in the last democratic election in Ukraine, which was the Presidential election in 2010 -- the final election in which Ukrainians in all parts of the country voted. Although Poroshenko was anti-Russian, he wasn't nearly as anti-Russian as was Tymoshenko. Yatsenyuk was Tymoshenko's subordinate, and he had been selected by Nuland because the Obama Administration were thinking that after the Presidential election, Yats would hand off the government to Tymoshenko, who led Yats's Party.

Putin blamed the EU for the coup, though (in fact) when the EU's Foreign Minister, Catherine Ashton, learned, on February 26th of 2014, that this overthrow had been a coup instead of a democratic revolution, she expressed shock and disappointment but went right on carrying out the Obama Administration's plan for the integration of the formerly Russia-allied Ukraine into the EU, and, ultimately, as was expected, into NATO, so that US nuclear missiles will be able to be installed there, on Russia's border, as close to Moscow as possible, for a blitz-attack against Russia, to conquer Russia .

Furthermore, in Nuland's instruction to the Ambassador in Kiev, she said "F -- k the EU" , because the EU aristocracies weren't nearly as eager to conquer Russia as the US aristocracy are; the EU aristocracies had wanted Vitaly Klitschko to head Ukraine; Klitschko wasn't rabidly anti-Russian , like Tymoshenko and Yatsenyuk were. Putin knew this -- he knew that the coup was done by the US, not by the EU.

Putin then described the coup as follows:

There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe.

They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it.

What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements.

However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements."

Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned.

Nowhere has Putin ever blamed the US Government for that coup, but he knows at least as much about it as did the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor when Stratfor's head described it as "the most blatant coup in history" because it had been so well documented via leaked phone-conversations and other solid evidences. There was no doubt that the US State Department had run it, and, ultimately, evidence became public that Google and the US State Department were already preparing the operation as early as in 2011 .

Putin continued his response:

It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence.

Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent?

Putin was appealing for the EU to become neutral on the Ukrainian matter, not for the US Government to do so, because Putin recognized that the US Government wants to conquer Russia and took Ukraine in order to advance that goal, whereas many in the EU want instead to have peace and trade with Russia and aren't so eager to invade. Putin has given up on America, whose Government is -- along with Ukraine and Canada -- the only defender of nazism (i.e., of racist fascism), at the U.N. But he knows that if he blames the coup on the US Government, this would make more difficult any possible efforts by the EU to move away from the US toward neutrality, because such an accusation against the US Government would only unify NATO, not break it up. He might be able to pick off a few EU members, to move toward neutrality and away from the NATO goal of ultimately invading Russia, but this can work only if he plays down the real power-contest, the contest between the US Government, whose goal is to conquer Russia , versus the Russian Government, whose goal is to remain a free and independent nation -- to protect its national sovereignty. The reason Putin blames the EU instead of the US is thus tactical. Especially interesting is that he says "This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent?" He is there making his appeal to anti-nazi Europeans, for them to break away from today's pro-nazi US regime. He is saying: Speak out against it; publicly separate yourselves from it. Then, he said:

I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations.

Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing!

He refers there to "the Kiev authorities," instead of to the Washington authorities, because he knows that the Europeans he's addressing are aware that Ukraine is now a vassal-nation of the US He knows that they know what he knows, on this. Then, he really does address, not the rulers of Ukraine, but instead the people of Ukraine, when he says:

I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation.

Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations.

Numerous polls have shown that many Ukrainians do feel "brotherly" toward Russians; he is trying to appeal to these people, to seek a restoration of that previous alliance: Russia with Ukraine's anti -nazis, instead of America with Ukraine's pro -nazis.

The pro-NATO Asle Toje could have interjected a retort to what Putin was saying, but kept entirely quiet, perhaps because he knew that if he objected to any of what Putin said there, then Putin would have had a terrific opportunity to respond by hinting at the real role that NATO (i.e., the US) was playing in Ukraine, the nazi role there, such as by perhaps alluding to the nazi American Victoria Nuland's famous "F -- k the EU!" statement, which she said when she gave the instruction, on 4 February 2014, for the next Government of Ukraine to be led by Ukraine's rabidly anti-Russian nazis .

Hamid Karzai, the former ruler of Afghanistan (or at least of Kabul), was also one of the participants at this conference, and he spoke about his country's long history of being a pawn in the ancient aristocratic "Great Game" of aristocracies waging wars of conquest in order to establish international empires and grab lands from each other. Then, he commented specifically about the role that America's seizure of Ukraine in 2014 had played in the latest stage of the Great Game:

On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory.

His point about "if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do?" was merely rhetorical, because in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the US already had shown what the US would do if Russia were to place missiles on or near America's borders: the US would launch a nuclear war against Russia. For some reason, Americans felt that that response -- threatening World War III -- was justified, by America, then, in 1962, but somehow don't feel that it would be a justified response, by Russia, now, when the shoe is on the other foot and even more so than it had been back in 1962 (because Ukraine is right on Russia's border). But, of course, it would be justified even more in the present instance, because conquest of Russia became, in 2006, America's all-but-official strategic-policy goal, replacing the former reliance (by both sides) upon the strategic-policy peace-maintenance goal, "Mutually Assured Destruction" (or "MAD") , which was nuclear weapons being maintained in order to avoid a WW III, instead of to 'win' a WW III (such as it has been for the US ever since 2006). Russia still believes in MAD, but America is now 'going for the gold', of 'victory'. This was implicitly the US and NATO policy ever since 24 February 1990 , but it became, since 2006, overtly the US and NATO objective, called "Nuclear Primacy," meaning the ability of the US to win a nuclear conflict against Russia -- to conquer Russia.

The recent (October 19th) statement by Putin was the most extensive that he has yet presented on the Ukrainian matter, but it's not the only statement he has made on this subject:

A year earlier than this latest Valdi discussion, Putin had said, on 12 October 2016 , at the 8th annual investment forum VTB Capital "Russia is Calling!" seeking foreign investments in Russia:

You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for?

And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions.

You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

On that occasion, because he was responding then to a question which had been raised by Rick Boucher, a former member of the US Congress, and now a partner in a law firm, Putin had been more direct, by his saying, "We did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power." But he was ambiguous as regards whether America simply "stood behind this," or instead actually "brought [the situation in Ukraine] to an unconstitutional way of changing power [i.e., to a coup there]." In any case, Boucher, too, had no response recorded there, to Putin's statement.

Vagueness in political speech is the norm; it's seen everywhere; and wherever it is encountered, tactical reasons are commonly being exemplified.

Still earlier, on 23 May 2014, just a few months after America's coup, Putin took part in the plenary session of the 18th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, and said in response to a question from CNBC's Geoff Cutmore:

President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future?

It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy

Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so?

All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans.

What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″

if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa.

He said this, against "The West," after the clear evidence that it had actually been the US regime that did the coup, and that had hired local Ukrainian nazis to carry it out, was already public knowledge, outside "The West."

On the front page of the New York Times on 23 October 2017 was a news-report about the efforts by Republicans in the US Congress to focus on something else than the alleged Russiagate manipulation of the 2016 US election, and about the efforts by congressional Democrats to focus only on those allegations, and this front-page NYT story casually employed the phrase "the extraordinary efforts of a hostile power to disrupt American democracy", as if that were already a proven fact, instead of being the Democratic Party's incessant propaganda-line in order to 'explain' Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat.

The US propaganda-media do things such as that, in order to whip up, to the maximum, their audience's hatred of Russians, and especially of the Russian Government, and so to promote the 'case' for war against Russia. Putin knows what the source of this march toward World War III is, and that it's not in Europe.

He knows that they've had more than their fills of wars, but that Americans are more malleable on this matter, more controlled by the aristocracy who own the nation's "military-industrial complex."

Tags: Ukraine Putin

[Nov 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty

Notable quotes:
"... The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ..."
"... His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." ..."
"... Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... ..."
"... Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications. ..."
"... His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done. ..."
"... His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. ..."
"... As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant. ..."
"... The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself ..."
"... After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now. ..."
"... According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man. ..."
"... It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him. ..."
"... ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner. ..."
"... It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since. ..."
"... However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) ..."
"... Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me. ..."
"... Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again. ..."
"... I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!) ..."
"... And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com
From Publishers Weekly Prouty, who was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years--in the last few of them as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Kennedy--has a highly unusual perspective to offer on the assassination and the events that led up to it. Familiar to moviegoers as the original of the anonymous Washington figure, played by Donald Sutherland in the Oliver Stone's movie JFK , who asks hero Jim Garrison to ponder why Kennedy was killed, Prouty leaves no doubt where he stands.

The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." Although he declares that such an elite has operated, supranationally, throughout history, and is all-powerful, he never satisfactorily explains who its members are and how it functions--or how it has allowed the current East-West rapprochement to take place.

Still, this behind-the-scenes look at how the CIA has shaped postwar U.S. foreign policy is fascinating, as are Prouty's telling questions about the security arrangements in Dallas, his knowledge of the extraordinary government movements at that time (every member of the Cabinet was out of the country when Kennedy was shot) and his perception that most of the press has joined in the cover-up ever since. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. From Library Journal Prouty, the mysterious "X" in Oliver Stone's JFK , promises to explain why Kennedy was assassinated. Instead, he delivers a muddled collection of undocumented, bizarre theories, most significantly that a super-powerful, avaricious power elite engineered the Cold War and all its pivotal events -- Korea, Vietnam, the U-2 incident, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy assassination.

Although they are never identified, these shadowy technocrats, working through the CIA, allegedly had Kennedy murdered because he was on the brink of ending America's commitment to Vietnam, along with its billions of dollars of military contracts.

Prouty avoids some very important issues. Would Kennedy, a Cold War warrior's warrior, have indeed ended American support for Diem? And why couldn't the omnipotent power elite ensure the election of Richard Nixon, its preferred candidate, in 1960--especially since Kennedy won by only .02 percent? A much better choice is John M. Newman's JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power ( LJ 3/15/92). See also James DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case , reviewed in this issue, p. 123.--Ed.

Emil Petardi on October 1, 2014

We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty. Mr

Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... .

We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty.

Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Coolfire VINE VOICE on May 17, 2012
Content of highest importance.

This is a very important book. It is difficult to read, because Prouty's writing is disorganized, perhaps not so to him, but to a reader. The fact is he had first hand knowledge of a great deal of what went on and into the period covering the latter part of WWII, all of Indochina / Vietnam, and into the Cold War. He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications.

His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done.

His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. The lessons are real. It would have helped had his writing been more organized, rather than jumping around with much repetition, but he does provide abundant specifics in support of his positions. In many cases he uses first person, as he was present. He knew what he was talking about. He has specifics.

As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant.

His material, cleaned up, should be taught in schools, but such history is never taught in classes. It is only learned `in the field' so to speak. And no nation wants it advertised exactly what drives covert operations and to whose benefit.

V-ROD on September 15, 2010
New information here

I agree with the author's premise of a conspiracy to murder JFK. There is information in this book that I have not read in any other historical reference. For example, the author states that the CIA transported the northern based people of Vietnam called the Tonkin and moved them to the south. He claims that this created a turmoil in the land as people began to fight for resources(food)to live. He states that it was this turmoil that was made to look like a communist infiltration of the country. All of this being a CIA manipulated event. Another interesting aspect is that we had been aiding the French occupation of Vietnam. This continued up until 1954; a few months before Diem being installed as President. We had been helping the enemy of the South Vietnamese people just prior to Diem's installation.

The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself and that is why you can find facts supporting both schools of thought. For example, Pres. Kennedy stated he wanted to be the first to put a man on the moon. A direct challenge to the cold war enemy Russia. Yet the book states later that Kennedy signed a memorandum desiring cooperation with Russia in the exploration of space. This is obviously an affront to the "cabal" that wanted the cold war to continue. There was alot of money to be made. I was disappointed the author didn't write about Pres.Kennedy issuing silver certificates in defiance of the Federal Reserve.

After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now.

This book is not an easy read. One negative about this book is that the author's points are repeated. It also left me feeling dismayed and bewildered. If you take the author's premise at face value, almost everything we see and read now has the possibility of being a planned event. The fascinating aspect about the JFK assassination is to see how this "secret team" that works behind the scenes is in control of almost all positions of authority that we have in this country. A chief justice resides on the Warren Commission and signs off on the absurd Warren report, police in Dallas allowing reporters direct access to Oswald; at the time the suspect for the murder. Police allowing Jack Ruby to just waltz up to Oswald and shoot him. LBJ and Hoover having a conversation about not wanting a congressional investigation of the assassination and just wanting to use the Hoover/Warren reports. This is way too many coincidences not to have been a conspiracy. Fletcher Prouty may not be 100% accurate, but I'll believe his version over our official history any day.

Tamango on May 6, 2012

"Let the truth rein, or let the heaven's fall."

"This is one of the greatest books written on the assassination of John F. Kennedy,the author Col L. Fletcher Prouty contribution from his work in the pentagon and his common sense view that someone needed to level the playing field-to let the public know that military spending and goals are completely unrealistic. We have to learn from the past and Col. Prouty is one of the few who explain the uncomfortable truth. This uncomfortable feeling goes on today. How do we know when we've won in Iraq or Afghanistan? Will this repeat in Iran and North Korea? What is the next military action that will be another unwinnable war designed to keep the Defense Department in business despite the astronomical costs as it bankrupts the nation? It's time that everyone examine what Col. Fletcher Prouty wrote as a warning of what was really going on as opposed to what was reported regarding the Vietnam war and the removal of John F. Kennedy.

Col. Prouty blows the lid right off our official history and reveal what is probably the closest to the truth that we will ever get regarding the assassination of JFK, this is a true example of what is done in the dark will come to the light..anyone who wants to continue to hide from the truth, then this book is not for you because you cannot handle the truth,it's too much for you.

This is a very important book unique in this big mess that continues to surround Kennedy's murder it is a story that has been buried for decades. It is an account the government didnot want you to hear, and actually fabricated evidence in order to keep you from hearing the truth. There are no crackpot theories here, these are facts this great cabal ( the power elite) has control high enough in government or at least in the councils of government, to be able to influence the travel plans of the president, vice-president and a presidential candidate (Nixon) and all members of the kennedy cabinet. They were powerful enough to have orders issued to the army, and were able to mount a massive campaign to control the media during and after the assassination. Now if that is not power in the wrong hands, i donot know what is..there is something about Col. Prouty manner that speaks of authority, knowledge and above all, old fashioned honesty."

According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man.

Vietnam for the powers that be... represented the potential of tens of billions of dollars. This is what caused him to be murdered, it was a military-style ambush from start to finish, "a coup d'etat."

One of the most memorable lines in the book and the movie JFK: "Sometimes i think the organizing principle of any society is for war, the authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers war readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's economy. This power elite together they stand above the law, can any president ever be strong enough really to rule?

And what about the outright theft of the president's brain from the national archives? And the total and complete failure of the secret service to protect JFK in dallas? It boggles the mind, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his assassination, and orchested the subsequent cover-up. This is an unspeakable refers to an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.

If you are not afraid to face the truth then this book is were you would want to start. So many things make sense when you start to put the piece's of the puzzle together and facts and common sense go a long way. That is why most people want to remain ignorant,they cannot face the truth so they try to discredit people like Col. Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Jesse Ventura to make them sound like lone nuts, sound like de'ja vu huh?

Col. Prouty was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years as chief of staff under president Kennedy this man lived this part of our history, who can better tell us the real deal than someone who was there and lived though it and who does not have anything to gain by keeping the biggest lie told to the american people on-going. Just sticking to the facts of this case and what just take basic common sense is to ask yourself "Why? that's the real question isn't it--why? the how is just scenery,Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question--why?

Why was kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who had the power to cover it up? This book is a must read for anyone out there who still believes in truth and justice for all. Don't believe me or anyone else..do your own thinking for yourself and you might surprise yourself in the process of searching for that truth. I would like to end this by saying thank-you to Col. Prouty, Mr. jim garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Ventura for being courageous enough to step forward to shine a light on the truth.

And for the non-believer's out there i feel sorry for you that you are satisfied with never really knowing the truth and how much it still effects your life today. I was not even born yet when president kennedy was assassinate but i was born one year later..and the deferences between me and you is i will always search for the truth and question it until i do find it.

I leave you with this quote: Those who can't remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. Everyone should own a copy of this part of history go out now and purchase this book before it disappear,just like the truth about JFK assassination.

bruce Lasch on June 29, 2013
JFK

I read this book a second time, about 1 year after I read it the first time. Mr Prouty had a very long and interesting career in the Air Air Corps which became the USAF. He has first hand knowledge of much of what he writes about in this book. His book is really the history of the USA since WW II with respect to the warnings of IKE "Beware of the military industrial complex".

If you did not like President Kennedy but wonder why the US has constantly been "at war" somewhere in the world since WW II then I think you will get a lot out of this book. When I was in the USAF back in the 1970's the higher ranking pilots that I flew with told me that Viet Nam was not a great war but it was the only war they had. Well, wars were good for career building if you were in the war, if you were the military industrial complex war was very good and necessary for profits.

The Radio Patriot on July 18, 2010
International Power Elite Pulling the Strings

I'm reading a stunning book written by the late L. Fletcher Prouty who served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired colonel of the U.S. Air Force, Prouty was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for the CIA's secret activities. He knew where the bodies were buried and the file cabinet containing the paperwork used to cover it up.

Prouty was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and was portrayed as "Mr. X" by Donald Sutherland, the man in black who advised New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin Costner) that he was on the trail to the truth.

If you have ANY interest whatsoever in learning the truth of the events that led to what happened to our country on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and changed the course of its direction, read it.

A brief excerpt from the 375+ page book that is the most detailed account of the inception of the CIA and the events that culminated in the coup d'etat on Elm Street in Dallas on a sunny day in November.

Excerpt:

From Chapter 16 - Government by Coup d'Etat

The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of "automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen, hired by a power cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars back in that fatal procession.

By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who had heard those fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fatal day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters.

From Chapter 18 - Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK

"The significance of all this was that I had introduced President Kennedy's Vietnam policy statement NSAM #263, into these discussions. It is my belief that the policy announced so forcefully by Kennedy in his earlier NSAM #55 and in NSAM #263 had been the major factor in causing the decision by certain elements of the power elite to do away with Kennedy before his reelection and to take control of the U.S. government in the process.

Kennedy's NSAM #263 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would have been reelected President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him."

I can't put this book down. It is without doubt, the most thorough explanation of the rogue CIA, it's influence and impact on America's involvement in paramilitary operations around the world and subsequent growing conflicts. It is, as Prouty describes:

"...For the world as a whole, the CIA has now become the bogey that communism had been for America. Wherever there is trouble, violence, suffering, tragedy, the rest of us are now quick to suspect the CIA had a hand in it. Our phobia about the CIA is, no doubt, as fantastically excessive as America's phobia about world communism; but in this case, too, there is just enough convincing guidance to make the phobia genuine...

"This is what the destruction of sovereignty and disregard for the rule of law means, and it will not stop there. With it will go property rights -- as we have witnessed in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- and the rights of man."

It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him.

This is a fascinating look into the world of the power elite: the supremely powerful international bankers who keep the books and balances for each side.

"They make these transactions possible by offering the loans, issuing letters of credit, and collecting the interest on the entire package. In many LDCs (third world "less developed countries") the total amount of interest paid to the banks and their international financing structure amounts to more than half of the total value of dollars earned by their exports. For this reason, annual payments are seldom more than the interest involved and none of the principal. This is one reason why the principal never comes back to the United States." (p. 243 - Ch. Sixteen - Government by Coup d'Etat)

Though the title focuses on the CIA, Vietnam and the plot to kill JFK, this 355 page (not including six pages of notes) book goes much further. It lays out and explains the real power -- the international power elite -- that designs the strategy and moves the pieces on the global chess board of politics, finance, and wars, domestic and international.

Prouty's very detailed book is based on a 19-part magazine series first developed by Prouty, with and published by Freedom Magazine. Prouty served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Prouty was in charge of the global system that provided military support for the CIA's secret activities. He was witness to activities, machinations and policy-making in the Pentagon and the White House that few others can claim. Prouty died in 2001.

"The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of "automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen hired by a power cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars back in that fatal procession.

"By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who heard those fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fateful day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters. (Ch. Sixteen, Government by Coup d'Etat - p 232)

~~*~~

When World War II ended with the nuclear bomb, the military industrial complex had a dilemma -- it understood that the next world war would be the final one, Yet it needed a way to keep the lucrative business of war making alive and profitable. How? By fighting a war waged for dollars, without a true military objective, under the control of civilian leaders, a war never intended to achieve victory. Enter Vietnam. Sound familiar?

Chapter Eighteen - "Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK"

[p 267]

Kennedy's NSAM #265 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would be reelected President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him.

[snip]

First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it, guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General Krulak, myself, and others of his staff. I am familiar with it and with events which led to its creation.

[snip]

Our history books and the basic sources of history which lie buried in the archives of government documents that have been concealed from the public, and worse still, government documents that have been tampered with and forged. As I have just demonstrated above, this most important policy statement, NSAM #263, that so many historians and journalists say does not exist, has been divided into two sections in the Pentagon Papers source history.

~~*~~

Chapter Nineteen - Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty

[pp 289-290]

"With Kennedy's announcement that he was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of détente. He asked Congress to cut the defense budget. Major programs were being phased out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to build against the young President. The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space program, and in the enormous potential cost -- and profit -- of the Vietnam War.

Kennedy's plans would mean an end to the warfare in Indochina, which the United States had been supporting for nearly two decades. This would mean the end to some very big business plans, as the following anecdote will illustrate.

It was reported in an earlier chapter that the First National Bank of Boston had sent William F. Thompson, a vice president, to my office in the Pentagon in 1959, presumably after discussions with CIA officials, to explore "the future of the utilization of the helicopter in [clandestine] military operations" that had been taking place in Indochina up to 1959.

A client of that bank was Textron, Inc. The bank had suggested to Textron officials that the acquisition of the near-bankrupt Bell Aircraft Company, and particularly its helicopter division, might be a good move. What the bank and Textron needed to determine was the extent of use of helicopters by the military and by the CIA then and the potential for their future in Indochina.

Both parties were satisfied with the information they acquired from the Pentagon and from other sources in Washington. In due time the acquisition took place, and on October 13, 1963, news media in South Vietnam reported that an elite paramilitary force had made its first helicopter strike against the Vietcong from "Huey" Bell-Textron helicopters. It was also reported in an earlier chapter that more than five thousand helicopters were ultimately destroyed in Indochina and that billions of dollars were spent on helicopter purchases for those lost and their replacements.

Continuing the warfare in Vietnam, in other words, was of vital importance to these particular powerful financial and manufacturing groups. And helicopters, of course, were but one part of the $220 billion cost of U.S. participation in that conflict. Most of the $220 billion, in fact, was spent after 1963; only $2 - $3 billion had been spent on direct U.S. military activities in Vietnam in all of the years since World War II up to and including 1963. Had Kennedy lived, it would not have gone much higher than that.

It is often difficult to retrace episodes in history and to locate an incident that became crucial to subsequent events. Here, however, we have a rare opportunity.

The success of the deal between the First National Bank of Boston, Textron, and Bell hinged on the escalation of the war in Indochina. A key man in this plan was Walter Dornberger, chief of the German Rocket Center at Peenemunde, Germany, during World War II and later an official with the Bell Aircraft Company. Dornberger's associate and later protegé from Peenumunde, Wehrner von Braun, who had been instrumental in the development of the army's Pershing and Jupiter rocket systems, became a central figure in NASA's plans for the race to the moon. Such connections among skilled technicians can be of great importance within the military-industrial complex, as they generally lead to bigger budgets for all related programs.

Kennedy had announced a reduced military budget, the end of American participation in Indochina, and a major change in the race to the moon. It takes no special wisdom or inside knowledge to understand that certain vested interests considered the Kennedy proposal to defuse Vietnam and these other major budget items to be extremely dangerous to their own plans.

The pressure brought to bear on Kennedy was intense, but some sort of major event was needed that would stir emotions and trigger action. It is very likely that the death of President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, on November 1, 1963, in Saigon was one of those events. There were at least eight or nine more that, in retrospect, indicate that a plot against Kennedy had begun to unfold."

~~*~~

Is it any wonder that despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama is still in Iraq and Afghanistan???

If you apply what Prouty reveals, it follows that Obama does not do anything unless it is decreed by the international power elite -- from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan to protecting our Gulf Coast oil-stained states.

JFK didn't dance to the tune of his masters. He did it his way. It cost him his life. Obama is the creation of his masters. He serves at their pleasure. He won't make JFK's mistake. You can count on it.

By Theodore M. Herlich on August 11, 1999
Mr. Prouty's book is excellent as autobiography

Mr. Prouty served in the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations during a significant portion of his professional military career. In this role, he observed first-hand how the CIA arranged/staged coups d'etat in the Phillipines and other nations around the globe. In the Office of Special Operations, Mr. Prouty was responsible for providing U.S. military support for CIA operations. This experience serves as the basis for Mr. Prouty's strong inference that the assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-style coup d'etat. The "why" of the coup d'etat is strongly established by Mr. Prouty. JFK intended to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1963 and hoped to complete the full withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1965. To do this, JFK needed to get re-elected. His decision to withdraw from Vietnam was based upon the McNamara-Taylor report of early October, 1963 and codified in National Security Action Memorandum#263 of October 11, 1963. [For a thorough, scholarly analysis of the evolution of JFK's Vietnam policy, see "JFK and Vietnam" by John M. Newman (New York: Warner Books, 1992). Mr. Newman is a professional historian and a faculty member at the University of Maryland]. Powerful interests in the CIA, Pentagon and the corporate world were "gung ho" in favor of large-scale military intervention in Vietnam. The prospective war promised billions of dollars in military contracts for the defense industry. JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam would deny these elements in the CIA, Pentagon and corporate communities their pot of gold. Immediately after the assassination of JFK, LBJ issued NSAM#273 on November 26, 1963 which was a complete reversal of JFK's policy. NSAM#273 authorized U.S. military raids into North Vietnam. These raids precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of July-August 1963, led to Congress' Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and massive U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. LBJ gave the CIA, Pentagon and defense contractors what JFK would have denied them: billions of dollars in defense contracts in support of the full-scale war in Vietnam. For Mr. Prouty, the ultimate inference is irresistible: to effectuate the complete turn-around of Vietnam policy proposed by JFK, a CIA-style coup d'etat was carried out in Dallas on November 22, 1963. LBJ's NSAM#273 reversing JFK's Vietnam policy [from withdrawal to establishing the foundation for massive U.S. intervention] was issued on November 26, 1963. The goals of the coup were obtained immediately following the assassination. Prouty gives us the "why" of the coup. Further research remains to be done in order to give us "who" and the "how". Prouty's work is a valuable starting point for further inquiry and deserves our appreciation for its autobiographical honesty and heartfelt analysis.

By doctordave77 on January 3, 2016
Very disappointing.

Very disappointing. I was looking forward to reading this book primarily because the author was so close to the action. But as other reviewers have pointed out, the focus of the book is a far reaching review of US history since 1944-45. Unfortunately, in this regard, the book is a failure.

Prouty isn't a historian and I'm sure that he doesn't claim to be one. But to attempt to cover the ground that he does, he's lacking a lot of background knowledge. This shows up quickly in the book - let me give you a couple of examples;

- He states that President Roosevelt died suddenly, unexpectedly is the word he uses, and this simply isn't true. Roosevelt was bed-ridden for about 6 months before his death and the US government was effectively run by his advisors during this period.

- He claims that the USA and Russia were allies at the close of WWII (true), but also that an atmosphere of trust existed between the two countries (false). He continues to make the claim that but for the actions of the CIA, the Cold War would not have happened. That's simply not the case - Roosevelt and his advisors weren't happy with Stalin and vice versa. The CIA didn't even formally exist until Truman created them in 1947 and they didn't act without full political approval of the US governments of the time.

Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, and I completely agree with him that they plotted and achieved the death of JFK. But that doesn't mean that they and the KGB were responsible for creating the Cold War! Does Prouty think that the KGB could have acted in anyway without the full and knowing approval of Stalin himself? And that the Dulles brothers somehow manipulated the USA into the Cold War without the support and approval of Roosevelt and Truman? Apparently, he does!

Much of his thesis is based on the concept that there is a "power elite" that has actually been in control of world of US and Russian actions since 1944. Perhaps he is correct that a cabal currently sits behind our governments and influences events, but I disagree with his notion that they have controlled political events in the detailed way that he suggests throughout the world since 1944.

This really isn't a book about JFK and his assassination as it is a somewhat innacurate attempt to describe world history since WWII.

By Jeff Marzano on November 16, 2014
Dark And Sinister Revelations

This book presents a very strange and sinister theory.

People who are into conspiracy theories talk about groups like the Bilderberg Group who collude in secret to make decisions that are good for them but disastrous for everyone else. Those types of groups, so the theory goes, are not associated with any one particular government or country. Author Fletcher Prouty describes something like that although he says it is not the Bilderberg Group.

I've always believed in the JFK conspiracy but I never thought this conspiracy extended beyond the United States government and Lyndon Johnson. But yet I have to ask myself, if Fletcher is wrong what is the alternative ? Could he be right ?

Fletcher Prouty was deeply saddened by what he observed first hand in Vietnam. People who had lived in peace for many thousands of years in northern Vietnam were uprooted from their ancestral lands and moved to the south with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This was done to create hopelessness and a boiling cauldron of despair which was the perfect environment for igniting the inferno of warfare.

This was all accomplished by that most sinister of organizations called the CIA This agency is expert at creating confusion, human misery, and death on a massive scale with no regard for human life whatsoever.

Fletcher spends a few chapters analyzing the official story about the Kennedy assassination as far as Oswald's involvement (he was not involved), the number of shooters, and the many unexplained lapses of following official and long held procedures for protecting the president.

He was able to easily see through the smoke screen of lies created by the government about the JFK assassination and many other things because he saw all this from the inside. He was part of the very machine that caused the escalation in Vietnam and the JFK assassination. The Warren Commission's story does not hold up for many, many reasons. For one thing there were too many bullets fired. What a strange coincidence that on the day JFK was killed Fletcher happened to be in Antarctica serving as a military escort for a bunch of diplomats on some sight seeing excursion.

But yet it seems the nefarious group that ordered this assassination didn't really care if people thought there was a conspiracy because they knew nobody can do anything anyway. That's what's so scary about all this.

Fletcher feels this High Cabal, as Winston Churchill called it, has existed for 2,000 years or more in some form. Perhaps this is that great, lying beast and multi headed hydra described in the bible in the Book Of Revelation.

Some of the groups Fletcher feels are part of this cabal are the CIA and the other American intelligence agencies, the American military, international bankers, industrialists, and the Dallas police department. But beyond that even Fletcher doesn't know who is really at the very top of this super elite power structure.

For Fletcher this cabal is much more powerful than the president of the United States and they will disregard what the president says if they want to. That's exactly what happened when the CIA sent Gary Powers on a U2 spy plane mission over Russia and made sure the plane malfunctioned. As a result a planned peace summit between president Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev was cancelled. Ike had given orders to stop all covert activity until this summit was over.

They also cancelled a mission to shoot up Fidel Castro's three aircraft before the Bay Of Pigs fiasco. That was a direct failure to follow president Kennedy's orders to make sure these planes were destroyed before the invasion. They did this to embarrass president Kennedy. That's because peace is the High Cabal's greatest fear and enemy.

The election of president Kennedy was a disaster for the High Cabal. JFK was interfering with their plans to spend, not billions, but trillions of dollars in Vietnam and on their other Cold War projects. JFK was interfering with their ability to control the American government. So they killed him and regained that power, partially through their murderous accomplice Lyin' Lyndon Johnson.

After World War II the High Cabal created the perception in the public's mind of an epic struggle between Communism and the West. They used this false premise to create limited, protracted warfare all over the world. But they had to ensure the fighting did not become too intense because of the ever present menace of nuclear weapons.

Could it really be that the High Cabal doesn't care about the ideological struggle between Communism and the West or any other ideology for that matter ? Could the CIA, the KGB, and other similar groups really be providing weapons to the combatants on all sides just to prolong warfare forever ? That's what Fletcher Prouty says in this book.

Another point is the Vietnam conflict did not have any well defined military objective so it was doomed to become a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful bloodbath with the body count being the only measure of success.

Here's an exchange between Lyin' Lyndon Johnson and military legend General Creighton Abrams and his aide:

Lyndon:

"Abe, you are going over there to win. You will have an army of 550,000 men, one of the most powerful air forces ever assembled, and the invincible Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy offshore. Now go over there and do it."

Aide:

"Mr. President, you have told us to go over there and do 'it'. Would you care to define what 'it' is ?"

Johnson remained silent as he ushered General Abrams and his men out of the Oval Office.

Fletcher appears in an episode of the documentary 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. The hypocrites have taken legal action to have some of those episodes pulled off the market and the DVDs are no longer available for those 'Final Chapter' episodes. However 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' can still be watched on the internet which I highly recommend.

Fletcher served as an advisor for Oliver Stone when Stone created his JFK movie. Stone's movie created a lot of controversy with the public and as a result people called for more hearings about the assassination. But those later investigations ran into the same brick wall of secrecy and deception that continues to this very day.

Fletcher drops another bomb shell in the notes section at the end of the book. He says on the day of the assassination JFK was shot with a poisonous flechette that was launched from an umbrella. A flechette is a very small, rocket propelled dart which travels at a very high velocity and which is very difficult to detect during an autopsy. Why they poisoned JFK even though they were planning on shooting him anyway I don't know. This may have been insurance in case JFK was not shot or not shot fatally.

The people who did this were professional killers. They leave very little to chance and account for many different scenarios.

On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination

David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination

Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses Are Linked to Lee Harvey ... Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics

Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973

The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD Series - Episode List

1. "The Coup D'Etat" (25 October 1988)

2. "The Forces Of Darkness" (25 October 1988)

3. "The Cover-Up" (20 November 1991)

4. "The Patsy" (21 November 1991)

5. "The Witnesses" (21 November 1991)

6. "The Truth Shall Set You Free" (1995)

The Final Chapter episodes (internet only):

7. "The Smoking Guns" (2003)

8. "The Love Affair" (2003)

9. "The Guilty Men" (2003)

By A Time Traveler on February 7, 2014
As Told By a Pentagon/Military Insider Since WWII

For all intents and pruposes, Prouty was serving behind the scenes of US Intelligence services in one capacity or another since before WWII (as special duty at both the Cairo and Tehran Conferences), until the day he retired. So how do you know he isn't just like all the other shills and "company men" from the inside who tell the public only what the elite want them to know? There is no better illustration of Prouty's willingness to tell his whole story -- with the vast information at his disposal -- than Page 260, which in this edition, is in Chapter 17 JFK's Plan to End the Vietnam Warfare:

"Why did the US government in 1945, before the end of World War II, choose to arm and equip Ho Chi Minh? Why did the United States, a few short years later, shift its allegiance from Ho Chi Minh to the French in their losing struggle that ended ignominiously with the battle of Dien Bien Phu? Why, after creating the Diem government in 1954 and after supporting that government for ten years, did the United States shift again and encourage those Vietnamese who planned to overthrow it? And finally, why, after creating an enormous military force in Indochina, did the US government fail to go ahead and defeat this same Ho Chi Minh when, by all traditional standards of warfare, it possessed the means to do so?"

And this makes-up the majority of this work by Prouty. He wisely stays with the evidence that HE has at his disposal. In other words, what Prouty effectively laid out for the reader, is the "Why" in the Kennedy assassination. He does so without assuming very much, as when reading the book, you see very well that there was quite a large swath of the Military Industrial Complex that stood to loose billions if Kennedy had lived. And thankfully, Prouty effectively explains in great detail that any myth about Kennedy escalating the Vietnam war is just that -- a myth. And Prouty's evidence of this? Documents from his time in the Pentagon and White House, not to mention press members and administration members who backed Kennedy's own words that US forces would be pulled out of the region after he was reelected.

For those who wish to research this subject further than the events in Dealey Plaza, Prouty's book is for you. If you want an idea as to "why" Kennedy was killed, I couldn't recommend this book highly enough.

By Acute Observer on October 20, 2014
Memoirs of an Insider

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

By Liz KS on November 24, 2015
Hard to put down.

A must read if you're wanting answers. I was and I've read a lot of books about this era because I lived through it and wanted answers to questions I had. Now it all makes sense. I would also suggest reading "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by Anthony Summers. I had a hard time putting that book down too.

By Herbert L Calhoun on October 31, 2013
The Long Journey to Dallas Texas

JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty

The Long Journey to Dallas Texas

Spoiler alert: This is neither the shortest version, nor the shortest route to understanding the JFK assassination. But it is as close to the complete canonical text and understanding of the assassination as there is ever likely to be. It is told by an insider, the high priest of understanding about the JFK assassination if you ask me (or Oliver Stone), one who has been around long enough, and has resided deep enough inside the bowels of the US government to know where all the skeletons are buried.

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was also a member of "The Secret Team," which he wrote a very revealing book about, of the same name. It has proven to be a critical part of the unfolding of the 50-year old drama of the JFK assassination. (Read my Amazon review of it.)

Here Col Prouty takes us by the hand and guides us on a journey, moving slowly but steadily and deliberately along a long winding path, through the historical underbrush beginning at the end of WW-II. He then leads us out into a clearing called "the Cold War," where events are craftily orchestrated around the threat of a nuclear holocaust. But it is orchestrated in such a way that the right to continue endless conventional wars is preserved and the world is made forever safe "for wars of profit" by other more novel means. Korea, would be the first but not the last of the "make money wars." The mother of all such un-winnable "money wars," however was Vietnam. It would represent a signature turn in the road that would "vector" directly to the JFK assassination. However, along the way the reader will also be introduced to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the oil angle, and then on to Cuba and the threat of nuclear war, finally ending up at high noon on 11/22/63 with the assassination of our 35th president.

As enlightening as the journey is it is not an easy trip for a "democratically trained mind." For along the way, we must unlearn the old rules of democracy in favor of learning a new set, with a new unwritten covenant, as well as a new vocabulary of reactionary and self-destructive power politics. And with them, we must also adopt and adapt to wearing a new kind of emotional straitjacket, armor better to make us comfortable granting involuntary consent to these altered understandings of how our more twisted and diminished democracy is supposed to work.

To wit: We the people, and they, our new anonymous ruling power elite, consent to govern us from above but forever behind the screen, promising nothing but to be unreliable invisible puppet-masters. And in return "we the people" are expected to close our "lying eyes" and pretend that when "we" see JFK's head snap violently back and to the left, it did not really happen? Now, and henceforth, our only reality tests are those prepared for us by our "lying media," the lemmings bought and paid for by our new invisible rulers. In short, the new contract mandates that we go along quietly, without whimpering, and accept the fact that "we the people" have been robbed of all previous contractual understandings of what a democratic government is supposed to mean.

What government "by," "for" and "of" the people used to mean, has been permanently altered. In this new "hyper real context" of being governed by an anonymous power elite, who are constantly pulling the strings from behind the curtains, government "by," "for" and "of" the people now means whatever our anonymous puppet-masters' media outlets tell us it means.

Those steeped in the conspiracy paranoia of the likes of the Bilderburghers, the Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, must understand that what Colonel Prouty is telling us here is not the same. They will find no comfort here on this journey for cheap conspiracy nonsense. Instead, they will find here just the clean facts, with all of the dots connected, convincingly written by one of the last of America's authentic patriots. When readers complete this book, they will then understand why the Bilderburghers, the Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, are all superfluous and unnecessary. All of the questions one can imagine about the JFK assassination are answered here.

A "Rough" Summary of Colonel Prouty's Story

After World War II, and owing primarily to the creation of the CIA, the U.S entered a new "hyper covert reality" in which, just as General Eisenhower had warned in his farewell address, the machinery of government was effectively commandeered by reactionary warmongers and war profiteers. The post-war power elite ruled by calling for continuous wars, with the CIA and the military acting as their vanguard and shock troops. There was nothing subtle about this take over, nor is reference to it just knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. Colonel Prouty provides us a framework and a clear discrete paper trail that reveals every step of the "take over process," steps that he argues convincingly led inexorably to the JFK assassination.

Step one was carefully embedded within policy memorandum NSC-5412, which among other things, gave all covert operations over to the CIA, and specifically prohibited the active military from engaging in them. However, after the spectacular debacle of the John Foster Dulles led Bay of Pigs operation, JFK issued (and was in the process of implementing at the time of his very timely assassination), a reversal of this policy with NSC-55, which would have given the responsibility for covert operations back to the active military through the JCS. Not only was this reversing directive never implemented, but with JFK's death, all of the generals running the Vietnam War, were actually CIA officers operating under military cover and rank. According to Colonel Prouty, this was nail #1 in the JFK coffin.

Nail number two involved an excruciatingly carefully worked out policy directive, NSAM-65 by the JFK national security team. It was the policy directive initiating the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965. NSAM-65 was drawn up after an unprecedented 23 high-level meetings by JFK's and his national security team. Not only was NSAM-65 not implemented, but it was reversed in a week after the assassination by LBJ initiated policy directives NSC-273 and NSC-288.

The final nail in the coffin, according to Colonel Prouty, the one that actually signaled that assassination plans were already afoot, is the tell-tale fact that in the Pentagon papers that had been released within the government before JFK was assassinated (and later exposed publicly by Daniel Ellsberg), one-page cover sheets were entered in the text at the point where the substance of JFK's two policy directives should have been? Twenty-five stars

By Luc REYNAERT on August 24, 2007
Today America has become the nightmare (Arnold Toynbee)

Prouty's autobiography is very revealing indeed. Of course, it contains controversial items (Would JFK have stopped the Vietnam War?). But, it is the general picture that counts, and here, the author is prophetic.

Prouty presents his world view as follows: `The world is ruled by a power elite. The basic motivations are always the same. Money lays at the root ... the enormous amount spent on military matériel.'

This elite wields its power partly and most importantly through invisible intelligence agencies. `The power of any agency allowed to operate in secrecy is boundless'.

Nationally, JFK would probably be reelected in 1964, also via carefully directed investments, which should have influenced favorably the voting in heavily contested states. This reelection for another 4 years was very hard to swallow for a part of the power elite. JFK had promised to cut the defense budget and destroy one of its power bases (`split an intelligence agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.')

JFK's masterfully planned assassination was a coup d'état, not less than a total takeover of the US government. The cover-up of the assassination, which is still going on, shows the immense power of the culprits. They controlled the Warner Commission and could (can) force, until today, the media and Congress to pay lip service to them. Congress was never capable to launch an adequate investigation into the murder.

Internationally, `the world's power elite benefited splendidly from the staggering sums involved in the Vietnam War.' The author's moving evocation of the fate of a pastoral Vietnamese village shows that `people's lives are valueless when they get in the way of elitist interests.' (Mark Curtis)

The powerful show absolutely no respect for national sovereignty (e.g., Vietnam, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, even Grenada), which is the principle on which `the family of nations exists, with its property rights and the rights of man.'

At the end, Prouty is even prophetic: `the power elite utilizes all manner of plots to achieve their ambitious goal. That gamesmanship is called `Terrorism'.

This book is a must read for all those wanting to understand the world we live in.

By Thomas J. Farrell on December 25, 2014
Well written and ably researched

In his perceptive book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY (2011), Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (Retired, U.S. Air Force) admirably demonstrates that he understands the dynamics involved in the Vietnam War. Time and again, Col. Prouty draws on his own personal experience to elucidate various matters he discusses.

Concerning the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson used trumped-up charges to escalate the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam into a major tragedy - and a defeat for the United States. Col. Prouty sees the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as having orchestrated the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Allen Dulles was the director of the CIA - until President John F. Kennedy fired him as a result of the CIA adventure to invade Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs debacle. During the Eisenhower administration, Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, served as the Secretary of State. The Dulles brothers were fervently anti-communist. Moreover, they regarded nation-states not aligned with the U.S. as aligned with the communists - the enemy in the Cold War.

Concerning the Dulles brothers, see Stephen Kinzer's book THE BROTHERS: JOHN FOSTER DULLES, ALLEN DULLES, AND THEIR SECRET WORLD WAR (2013). In my estimate, Kinzer does fine job of tracing the American anti-communist spirit back to the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. But Col. Prouty does not advert to this earlier history of the American anti-communist spirit. Instead, he picks up the story in the waning times of World War II (WWII). As he points out, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was one of our allies in WWII against Adolf Hitler's Nazis in Germany. As Col. Prouty also points out, Chiang Kai-shek's China was one of our allies in WWII against Japan. (Subsequently, Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by Moa Tse-tung's communist forces.)

Col. Prouty explains how 1.1 million peasants had earlier been transported about a thousand miles from their traditional culture in what then became known as the nation-state of North Vietnam and had been relocated in what then became known as the nation-state of South Vietnam, where they were landless and poor. Their relocation was orchestrated by the CIA

As a result of their dire needs for food, many of them became bandits. As Col. Prouty repeatedly explains, those bandits had been relocated in the Mekong Delta. The Mekong Delta is so far to the south of North Vietnam as to preclude their having infiltrated from North Vietnam. Unfortunately, those bandits were considered to be communist "infiltrators" from North Vietnam - the enemy. Those bandits came to be referred to as the Vietcong.

With admirable clear-sightedness, Col. Prouty also explains the complicated logistics of helicopter warfare in the Vietnam War.

Because President Harry Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender, most powerful Americans had subsequently figured out that another all-out war like WWII would result in the nuclear destruction of human life on the planet. As a result, Col. Prouty claims, President Johnson would not authorize the American military to fight for victory over North Vietnam because such a fight would of necessity run the risk of expanding the conflict to bring in China and perhaps the Soviet Union - and thereby risk the dreaded nuclear holocaust. Thus American forces were consigned to waging the Vietnam War without risking victory - and the dreaded nuclear holocaust.

Even though Col. Prouty's overall discussion of the Vietnam War is astute, his major thesis in the book is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, by experienced assassins hired to do the job. In CIA parlance, such hired assassins were referred to as "mechanics."

President Kennedy had ordered that all American advisers would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Moreover, he was likely to win re-election in 1964, which would mean that he could make his order stick.

However, for years, the CIA had been cultivating Vietnam for a war there. A war there would serve the purposes of enriching what President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address had referred to as the military-industrial complex - in plain English, war profiteers. No doubt the war profiteers did profit enormously from the Vietnam War. (Of course the war profiteers employed many Americans in their civilian work force.)

Despite the fact that Col. Prouty suggests that the CIA was probably involved in President Kennedy's assassination, he stops well short of naming specific CIA and other government officials who were involved in the carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate President Kennedy. In this respect, we could say that Col. Prouty paints the big picture - but he ably paints the big picture.

In conclusion, Col. Prouty's book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY (2011) is well written and ably researched.

By John Duddy on August 21, 2015
Who runs this planet?

This is a shocking book. L. Fletcher Prouty is a world class whistleblower. After reading this masterpiece take another look at the official 9/11 report. The secret cabal running our planet has been exposed by many writers and few politicians; this is an insider's report on that cabal. False flag attacks are now used by the cabal, not only in USA but in any country where the locals are not towing the line as demanded by the banksters.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -- Voltaire"

Amazing, the cabal has kept the lid on the murder of JFK for over 50 years. How long will we be kept in the dark about 9/11?

By W. Wilt on March 11, 2014
So somebody finally pulls it all together--the conspiracy is not a theory, it's all facts. Circumstantial, but no lies

Best editorial trick revealed: Leslie H. Gelb, who was to the Watergate papers what Phil Zelikow was to the 9/11 Commission novel, used the neat writer's trick (Gelb was a New York Times editor, you may recall) to hide something in black ink on a white page. Gelb uses the title President to avoid mentioning that JFK's presidency was ended with bullets. The President (JFK) had NSAM #263 written & promulgated, 1 Oct 63. The memo noted that the troops could be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Ending the CIA-guided Indochina war they'd begun in September of 1945. So Gelb has "The President" as author of #263, have a mind-change with his cabinet, all of who had decided to go to Honolulu for the 22nd. On the 23rd, when an official speaks with The President, and a new NSAM is issued--#273, which called for an escalation of Conflict. The President of #263 has changed his mind and issued #273. The title stays the same, but the brain of the President who commissioned #263 was blown away by, what, Hornady hollow-point, boat-tail bullets (the kind the Abteilung der Heimats Versicherheit (dept of "home" "security"). And "The President" of the second instance just happened to be a different president, LBJ.

That's some clever and wondrously deliberate writing. The words are there in front of your nose, in plain sight. And yet they hide the circumstances, that, in the brief period between Nov. 21 and Nov. 23, the title President had not changed--just the life and body for which it represented. (In the newspaper biz, novices are instructed to "write around" facts that are missing. In this case, a few years after the Assassination of JFK, i think most people had gotten the news that JFK was dead and gone. Gelb and his boss were in that news loop, so I doubt Gelb would testify that he didn't know that JFK had been murdered (by a head shot fired from the Grassy Knoll, of course, but who's quibbling). No reason to fail to mention that The President (JFK) had been replaced by The President (LBJ), except if you want to avoid the "chance" that people will notice that Presidential Policy on Nov 21, 1963 (NSAM 263 (JFK) hand changed 180 degrees to Presidential Policy (NSAM 273) on Nov. 23 (LBJ).

So in the murder investigation, you'd want to bring Gelb in to get his story. You might want to set a water-board in the witness box right next to him--perhaps the special, autographed KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) model, guaranteed to last at least 168 uses (whether by one "detainee" (POW) or a succession of them. And you'd want to get all this moving while at least a few of the players are still alive. I'd like to hear what David R. and the rest of the Wall Street Banksters and lawyers have to say about JFK, RFK, Tonkin, USS Liberty, 9/11, etc. And also what Cheney and Shrub I and Shrub II and Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and Pearle, etc., have to say about all the above.

At any rate, Prouty is a must-read. As is William Pepper's "An Act of State: The assassination of MLKjr." which puts the quietus to the phrase "conspiracy theory". Not a theory any longer, but a conspiracy fact. But who will prosecute members of the High Cabal? They run the government, with their private army, the CIA, and have since Nov. 22, 1963. Not that anybody cares, of course.

By Acute Observer on October 20, 2014
Memoirs of an Insider

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

By Michael Tozer on September 1, 2006
Simply Great!

In this volume, Colonel Fletcher Prouty captures both the secret history of the United States from 1945 to 1975 and the reasons behind the plot to kill President Kennedy. Herein, the courageous Colonel illustrates quite clearly that the clandestine history and the assassination plot were intrinsically linked.

From the important information in this book, we learn that the war in Vietnam actually began on September 2, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was established as the new leader of Vietnam by our OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the US Army. The United States was thoughtful enough to provide all the weapons, ammunition, and supplies necessary for Ho and Giap to pursue their war against the French, which culminated in the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. Following that defeat, the CIA arranged for the transfer of 1.1 million "refugees" from the North of Vietnam to the South. These folks caused such disruption in the fragile agricultural economy of the South that their arrival ultimately drove the orginal residents to banditry in order that they might survive. These displaced bandits became what was later known as the Viet Cong. Hence, the CIA created the conditions necessary for a full scale war in Vietnam.

On coming to office, Kennedy, a brilliant and studious man, came soon to understand the perfidy of the CIA One of first his acts on realizing this was to fire CIA director Allen Dulles. Soon thereafter, he issued one the most important, and unknown, documents of US history, NSAM 263. Issued in October of 1963, this document called for 1,000 US military personnel to come home from Vietnam by that Christmas. The remainder were to be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Had John Kennedy lived, what Americans know as the war in Vietnam would never have happened.

Prouty demonstrates herein that the powers that be ultimately made the decision that they could not allow Kennedy to live. He makes it clear that assassination researches who make a career of examining the details of the government's false cover story truly miss the point. What matters is not how the President was killed, but why. And the answer to that question is that the assassination was a coup d'etat, transferring control of the government of the United States to a power elite, which has been in control ever since. Hence, we have the strange silence of every succeeding President on the issue of the cover up of the Kennedy assassination.

The book is well written and extraordinarily important. He would understand our nation and how it came to be in the condition that now obtains would be well advised to read carefully this terribly important book. God bless.

By Bill Crowley on June 27, 2015
Finally, a man on the inside talks

This book is written by someone who was sitting in the middle of Eisenhower's feared military-industrial complex, instead of an outside researcher. Col Prouty lived what he tells us for several years. He saw the Korean & the Vietnam War buildup from the inside; he watched as the Bay of Pigs went down and No, it was not JFK's fault.

I was most impressed that Col Prouty is the actual person depicted as "Mr. X" and portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's JFK.

If only half of what he tells us is the truth, then we need to demand another look at JFK's murder.

By Peter Cimino on November 6, 2012
Fascinating read, from a man inside the Military Complex

Overall, this was a fascinatiing read, and an awesome addition to my already humongous JFK Assassination collection. My only points of contention: 1)The name of it (and I realize the name needs to attract the reader) should have been The Military Complex / The Power Elite: How it works and it's connection to the JFK Assassination. The first three quarters of this book was all about the High Cabal and the Military complex. Incredibly detailed and compelling reading, but I just could not wait for it to end so we could get to the JFK part. But when it did...BAM! I could not put the book down. 2) This may be minor, but parts were extremely repetitve. I stopped counting how many times he referred to the one million Vietnemese who migrated to South Vietnam. I know he was trying to bang the point home, but it got to a point where it was not needed. 3) Once he got to the assassination itself I truly thought he would get into names...who made up this High Cabal or Power Elite that is more powerful than the President and US Government. I understand this could be dangerous...but a little hint would have been nice. 4) I thought he would get into more detail how the Assassination was pulled off. He drops a lot of hints and possibilities, but never really gives details to his personal thoughts. I cannot believe Mr. Prouty, after all his years serving in the military in the sensitive positions he held, could not come up with some kind of idea. Be that as it my, I truly believe this is as close the truth that we could ever get. I think this give the Why and Who would benefit. But would love even more detail. Maybe that's asking too much... Whether or not you are a JFK Assassination buff...this is truly an amazing read.

By Gianmarco Manzione on February 12, 2005
An Admirble Attempt at Truth-telling by a Good Man

If you have come to this book looking for another lean, persuasive investigation of the various conspiracies that could have led to the killing of JFK, you have come to the wrong place. prouty's book reaches far wider than that narrow scope, exploring every square inch of his vast, first-hand knowledge of the workings and consequences of the so-called Cold War (though I don't see how the bloody loss of millions of lives during that time constitute a war that was anything but blazing hot).

Prouty, a former Air Force colonel and CIA insider, manages to observe his life's work from an objective standpoint that raises countless probing and often hair-raising questions and warnings. Reaching back to the origins of the cold war and its effects on the policy and history that would soon be made, Prouty paints an expansive, thorough and detailed account not only of the JFK assassination, but of the entire political and industrial framework festering in the 20 years leading up to that moment that allowed such a tragedy to take place.

Contrary to most other books that deal --either obliquely or directly -- with JFK's murder, prouty's endures with a relevance that has as much to say about our own time as it does about Kennedy's. He foresees all the problems of a tyrannically powerful CIA that functions as the President's puppet master. "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are CIA students of yesterday," Prouty asserts in what amounts to an astonishing revelation when one considers that, among others, Osama Bin Laden is one of those "CIA students of yesterday." But it isn't only terrorists: it is the people we put in place as American puppets around the world. Take Hamad Karzai, for example, former CIA agent and millionaire now serving as President of Afghanistan.

The intimate and omnipotent mingling of money, military, covert intelligence operations and politics is precisely the network of power Prouty implicates not only in the crime that was the JFK murder, but the crime of so many brutal wars and coups performed by the CIA throughout the world to this very day. We are under the tyranny of an intelligence elite, an elite that happens to have the most powerful military and political machines on the planet at its service.

As prouty shows, Truman regretted his approval of the formation of the CIA toward the end of his presidency. Eisenhower tried to curb its powers but failed miserably, and when Kennedy fired Allen Dulles -- CIA chief at the time -- and not only threatened but actually worked to break the CIA "into a thousand pieces," he was killed. If that strieks you as an irrational logical leap, you need to read Prouty's book.

It is admirable that he undertook the writing of the book himself, rather than resorting to the services of some professional writer as so many politicians and military officials do for their memoirs and other books. Consequently, Prouty's book suffers a bit from a lack of the kind of polish it might have had. He struggles to organize his vast knowledge into the kind of coherant narrative he envisions and promises to no avail throughout. The reader has to work a little harder here to put the many pieces together that prouty lays out.

Nonetheless, Prouty's book reads like a desperate, angry and even frantic attempt at telling the truth by a man whose writing voice belies a remarkable warmth and sincerity. He knows so much and is so appalled at the hypocrisy he witnessed throughout his career -- hypocrisy that turned to horror -- that his book reads like the result of a minor god angrily shaking his fists and roaring in a locked room. His background, littered with merits and accolades, backs up every claim he makes here.

Prouty's book is entirely based on first-hand knowledge and expertise he gleaned over the course of a distinguished career: the precarious security arrangements in Dallas that day, Kennedy's advocacy of a US note that would compete with the federal note, his vow to remove all troops from Vietnam by 1965 and how this threatened the money-making machine that was the Vietnam "conflict," the utter astonishment in Washington at Kennedy's victory over Nixon, a man for whom various war and intelligence initiatives had already been drawn up for him to sign off on at the start of his presidency -- before he was even elected!

From its first hour, Kennedy's thousand-day presidency threatened so many established powers, so many benefactors of the military industrial complex, that there was no way it could have ended up otherwise. Even Robert McNamara, a great admirer of the president and godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy's kids, understood that a helicopter-augmented war like Vietnam would "churn out big dollars," that the war itself was capable of creating the $500 billion in military-industrial profits it eventually raised. Any former Ford executive understands the profits inherent in the collusion between military and industry.

As Prouty reports, quoting the controversial novel "Report From iron Mountain," "The war system is indispensable to the stable political structure . . . war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power." This is precisely the bleak "necessity" that Kennedy eventually grew to rebuke, and it was that rebuke that put the nails in his coffin long before his trip to Dallas.

By A customer on June 15, 1996
Very, very good.

I am a fan of Col Prouty, ever since I read The Secret Team.

Oliver Stone is in excellent company, because both of these men aren't afraid to tell the truth.

It is exactly the lack of truth that is killing the

United States.

Those who attack this book, and Stone, with the usual ignorant hysterics, are part of the cancer that is destroying the very innards of the last, great democracy on earth.

JFK's assasination was just a symptom of disease that is ravageing us today. This book supports this point.

By the way, if you believe the results of the Warren Commmission, (the House Select Comm. on Assasinations didn't, in 1976-78),then you are part of the problem.

This book gives an excellent pre-text to the take-over plans of the war-industy complex,starting after World War II. Prouty clearly states how the US Navy took part in the destabilization of Viet Nam by assisting in exporting tribes to the south. The resulting mess fell into Kennedy's hands.

You can understand why the fascists would have to dispatch a man like Kennedy, because he tried to do what was right. He was too charismatic, and he was correct. He could move too get emotionally involved, and then to act. This was viewed to be a dangerous thing.

Kennedy's Presidential Memorandum #263 was the spark the could ignite a conflagration, pulling the armed forces out of Viet Nam. This correct moral action would lead to other positive events, such as the deconstruction of the war machine at home. If this course was allowed to be taken. It didn't , of course.

The Military Right Wing and Ultra Hawks of the US had to liquidate Kennedy. Then, later, Bobby, Malcom X, King... and I am sure that it was They were all done in by the same smoking gun. They couldn't stand in the light of truth, like a vampire can stand the light of the sun.

The prolem is still rampant today, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Read this book before revisionist history forces it from the shelves. Keep it alive, talk about it. You'll find that you will defend it when you see the context that is carefully presented by Prouty.

Also, think about how (now) Sen. Arlen Specter told us how the "magic" bullet is proof of the single assasin theory. Then think about how he told us that this same bullet dediced to wait in the air 1.6 seconds before striking Gov. Connally, and then move on to kill President Kennedy, and still later was recovered with absolutely no loss of mass. Think, then reject the fantasy tale outright.Specter was a liar, then as he is today, and the Warren Commisssion's finding are pathetically false.

You should then read this book. It's not fantasy.

The cancer grows as you read this, but it is not too late... I think. If enough people get informed, and then act according to their conscience, they can then eradicate the cancer.

There are not enough liar/fascists to stop a revolution of the truth. Today, they are afraid, and for good reason.

Thank you.

MBF

By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance

These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI, (Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good "original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson, MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to his country, the United States of America.

Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he does, in fact, speak the truth.

I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:

Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.

At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of the United States. If one who is in such a position:

1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;

2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" -- i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;

3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F. Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup d'etat";

Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.

I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.

In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."

GO_SECURE

Gregory Burnham

VISAC

By Acute Observer on January 22, 2002
Memoirs of an Insider

Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency.

L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?).

"Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor?

Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187).

Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day.

The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance

These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI, (Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good "original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson, MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to his country, the United States of America.

Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he does, in fact, speak the truth.

I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:

Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.

At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of the United States. If one who is in such a position:

1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;

2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" -- i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;

3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F. Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup d'etat";

Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.

I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.

In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."

GO_SECURE

Gregory Burnham

VISAC

By [email protected] on February 24, 1999
Constitutional Implications of the JFK Assassination

A recent poll taken by CNBC and a "news-eum" shows that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the 6th most important event of the twentieth century. How or why those polled justify this choice is not clear. But anyone familiar with American history, American culture, and the myths and assumptions most Americans carry as a foundation of their beliefs -- can deduce the relevance of November 22, 1963 and its implications.

Every school kid is taught that we live in a country where there is no need for coup d'etat. We don't assassinate our leaders; we retire them at the voting booth. In this, derives the faith we have in all our other institutions, and especially, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From the dawn of our individual consciousness, we are made to believe and assume that we are "safe," that we can think and say and do as we please, so long as we don't tread on the rights of others. And every school kid learns by rote the Preamble to the Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . ."

So for thirty-five years, most of us have been living in some form of illusion and denial. We were told and made to accept the story that the President of the United States was killed by a single, crazed person -- a relative nobody, an insect. The Warren Commission Report assured a majority of people over some part of those 35 years that our institutions are safe. It attempted to assure us, among other things, that our public officials continue to be honest; that our judges continue to value and protect Justice and Truth above everything else; that our policemen and local officials can be relied upon to protect us; and that the government, when it tells us to send the flower of our youth to war, does so for good reason. In a way, the Report was a means of continuing the myths that we all believe, especially, that "We the People" are the ultimate source of authority and power in our government.

Unfortunately for the authors of the 26-volume Report -- but fortunately for the rest of us -- it has lost its credibility. That credibility began to erode almost as soon as the Report was published, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans parish, resurrected his investigation into the activities and actors of the building at Lafayette and Camp streets. Almost from the beginning, the work of Garrison and his staff was hampered by the seemingly unexplainable efforts of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that time, we have been slowly awakened to the possible involvement of as many as three elected presidents in the Warren Commission coverup, and there are echoes of something worse, something more sinister.

We owe this awakening in part to the efforts of Garrison, and to the contribution of the man who anonymously assisted him in that investigation of the late 60's. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, the "Mr. X" of Oliver Stone's "JFK," retired from the CIA not more than a year after the assassination. New facts in the assassination have slowly accumulated, partly due to the efforts of Prouty, Garrison, an emerging army of quiet and persistent historical researchers, investigative journalists, and -- yes -- even elected officials.

Now there are several variations on the conspiracy theme, which polls show is now accepted or suspected by as much as 78 percent of the American population. Some believed that Castro was the source of the plot to kill JFK. Others accepted the most reasonable theory that organized crime, namely Carlos Marcello, was the dark force behind the assassination. How comforting. We can now change the TV channel to "The Brady Bunch" -- we are still safe as long as the identity of the bogeyman that robbed us of a President and half a century's history doesn't challenge our basic beliefs in the institutions of government. And of course, the institutions of the powerful are also safe from a skeptical and inquiring public.

Other theories are more troubling, and as Prouty tells us apologetically, advocates of these theories perennially suffer the labels of "conspiracy nut" and "paranoid." But Prouty was the post-war pilot who shuttled dignitaries to the major conferences of World War II and facilitated the "rescue" of Nazi intelligence officers from their potential Soviet captors. He was on Okinawa when the thousands of tons of war materiel suddenly deemed unnecessary for an invasion of Japan were unexplainably shipped to Haiphong Harbor for the VietMinh. He was privy to the CIA's covert operations from that point forward which slowly enmired America in a war without strategic objectives -- the war in Vietnam. He was in the midst of CIA staff who planned the covert initiatives against Castro, notably Operation Mongoose and the Bay of Pigs. He presents detailed, plausible explanations of the reasons why these efforts failed. This provides a basis for a most incredible argument that a "High Cabal" of individuals and agencies -- above politics, even above government itself -- set in motion the decisions, events, and coordination that enabled the murder of a President.

Prouty was Oliver Stone's closest consultant in forging the epic movie "JFK." The underlying theory of the movie has been labeled "Conspiracy-a-Go-Go," the essence of a plot masterminded by a "High Cabal." The features of such a plot are merely hinted by the movie. Viewers may take away from the film an awakened sense of suspicion mixed with disbelief, and this does not detract from the film as good cinematic art. But Prouty's book offers some solid history and autobiography. It doesn't digest as impassioned rhetoric or the rantings of an extremist paranoid. It comes off as the ruminations and reflections of a witness who has both feet on solid ground.

The author consistently reminds us that an explanation of Kennedy's murder must be grounded in economic reasoning. "Who stood to benefit?" "Why?" He tells us that he doesn't want to concern himself with the identities of the contract assassins themselves, and indeed he informs us that it is in the nature of this underworld thick with professional "mechanics" that their identities may never be entirely known. Instead, he provides us a review of history and foreign policy during the initial and most frightening stages of the Cold War, and he reminds us that individuals are at the core of power where decisions of enormous scope are made frequently without either the participation or the knowledge of the public. So rather than point the finger explicitly at conspirators -- whose identities may be suggested or mentioned as part of the book's historical message -- he leaves it to the reader's judgment.

I cannot fault the book for its failure to present solutions. Ted Kazynski, in his "Manifesto," levels accusations against the same dark, if not anonymous forces, and most people will overlook the scribblings of someone diagnosed as criminally insane. But we cannot ignore any longer the existence of a "power elite" and the imperatives of large-scale global organization which support its existence. If we wish to live in society and partake of the benefits of a civilization thousands of years in the making, we have to accept these distortions to the democratic myths that saturate our consciousness and perceptions. Offering a practical prescription for controlling those forces was never Prouty's objective in writing this book. More aptly, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" is a profound wake-up call.

Prescriptions do not come easily. Those interested in what should prove to be a long and protracted debate should read Gerry Spence's "Give Me Liberty." But one cannot address the problem unless he or she is aware of it. To this end, Prouty's book provides sharp historical focus.

Randy Bednorz

By [email protected] on September 11, 1998
This vital work is a MUST READ for ALL Americans.

Col. Prouty's most informative book exposes the vicious, greedy, and super-anonymous hand of the "High Cabal" as none other has dared attempt. It clearly demonstrates the bizarre and disgusting chain of events (created by the OSS and CIA) that began before the end of WWII; events that led to President Eisenhower's unprecedented farewell address (and warning) to the nation. These events also led to the creation of President John F. Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum #263, which called for de-escalation of the Vietnam War and withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; the memorandum that ultimately led to his death.

This work exposes the planned genocide of millions of innocent, non-combatant Southeast Asian civilians, under the guise of such noble sounding terms as "pacification." Readers learn that none of these attacks on the peace-loving Southeast Asians were undertaken to protect any nation or preserve any ideology. Rather, they were thrust upon the Southeast Asians to further feed the exceedingly bulging pockets of greedy international bankers and the insidious military-industrial complex. These events also served to further perpetuate the High Cabal's iron-fisted, though ultra-secret, control over American government, among others, and the world economy. Vietnam is but one homeland that the High Cabal has decimated to serve its own purposes. There have indeed been many others throughout history. The question is: who's next? Perhaps us? Every American should read this vitally important book. And, think about it...

Hats off to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A truly great American! I proudly salute you, Sir.

By Mike Bartus on February 23, 2000
A great book among others

I want those readers who have not read this book to read my opinions below.

First, this is a great book simply because Prouty has provided more inside ammunition for researchers to mine the depths of our secret government. This is the government of men who controlled the secret programs of assassination, the secret slush funds of counterintelligence, the operatives who dilligently carried out their secret orders,their programs of stealth, quasi-law breaking, and other publically inaccessible information. Prouty's book quite correctly points the finger at Dulles, Lansdale, and others in CIA, who were paranoid about communism and Castro. They viewed Kennedy as a traitor and he stood in the way of the war machine they were operating, both overtly, but especially covertly. The termination of raids to Cuba, the failure of follow-up air support at the Bay of Pigs, the promise not to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis, were all blamed on Kennedy. The firing of Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell contributed to the intelligence community wanting JFK removed from command. It is astonishing that so few have commented on the contrast between now and then: in 1963 we were fed lies depicting Oswald as a crazed nut, a loner, and defector. These days we have mountains of evidence he was much more than these pictures of him. He associated with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, anti-castro cubans, and others. He returned to the US without a hitch, but in those days a defector would have been hounded and closely watched. If this were true,then why wasn't the FBI catching all his associations and illegal activities? Prouty has produced the superstructure of the conspiracy by showing the history, and context of the cold war and the CIA

If one can view a supposed loser like Oswald pulling off this assassination as being totally ridiculous, then one can entertain other possibilities. Why was Lyndon Johnson reversing NSAMs so quickly concerning Vietnam? Why did Johnson appoint Warren, Dulles, Ford, et al? Why wasn't the Dulles appointment perceived as a conflict of interest? Here is the fired subordinate investigating the dead boss! Dulles definitely kept information from the panel, especially about the assassination plots being orchestrated by the CIA, with the Mafia as the gunmen. In this connection, another book of importance should be read and that is by Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. It is a difficult book because he describes a quasi government,over-and-above government institutions, which controlled the plot and the outcome. This corresponds to some observations about Prouty's book, which fails to name names. But that isn't quite correct. Prouty does name many persons who were in command positions and had the power to orchestrate the assassination.Two prominent persons were Dulles and Lansdale. Any clever and alert reader who watched Stone's movie JFK will see a very short (about 2 second)sequence in the movie where General X is making the call to the network to carry out the plot and kill JFK. On his desk is a nameplate which clearly says "Lansdale".

The Prouty book establishes that Kennedy "was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of detente.He asked congress to cut the defense budget.Major programs were being phased out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to to build against the young President.The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space program, and in the enormous potential cost-and profit-of the Vietnam War."

It is very ironic that his enemies in government brought about detente with the Soviet Union. The notion that Oswald was a lone killer is preposterous and if it were true, why would the full truth be kept from us so long after the collapse of communism? This was the facile justification for locking up the evidence until 2025: that our outrage against a communist conspiracy would demand a war against the communists. The real truth was to control the information to the American public, so as to cover their tracks, and establish a legend to the JFK killing.

Everyone should read this book. I heartily recommend this book to anyone seeking insight into the question about insiders being involved in the killing.

By [email protected] Tim Canale on January 6, 1999
Highly Recommended!!

Prouty gives us the point of view of both an ace historian and an insider taking us from the origins of the cold war up through the assassination of President Kennedy, and then on up through tomorrow night's evening news. It's haunting how the power elite's patterns of military strategies and propaganda tactics of that era correlate with many of today's current events. Just the other day somebody on TV was screaming, "Why wasn't there an objective in Desert Fox?!" while at the same time I'm reading the answer in Prouty's book, yet the book was written 6 or 7 years ago.

This isn't a book only on the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy's bold decisions which led to his death and the forces behind it all. He explains clearly the post-H-bomb military strategy of aiding both sides of the fence in Vietnam to win the REAL war - big business. We get an inside look at the Dulles brothers and their direct line to the "High Cabal" which overrules even the White House.

I once heard Col. Prouty say in an interview that he's never read a page of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of hearings on the assassination. He said he didn't have to because he knew who did it. I thought that was a bit odd, but after reading this book I understand what he means. Prouty had worked with these guys! These are the same forces that overthrew the Philipines, Greece, Iran, Bulgaria and Guatemala (to name just a few).

Out of all the books written about the Kennedy assassination this is easily one of the best. Check out his website!

By A customer on October 22, 1999
A disturbing and enlightening insight into the Cold War

This book uncovers the many reasons for the Korean & Vietnam conflicts. It clearly implicates the OSS/CIA during the end of World War II in their involvement in providing supplies for the Koreans and then later for the Vietminh. Colonel Prouty indicates how the CIA are quite often able to live in a secret world while manipulating other federal agencies to their desired ends. When Kennedy took office in 1960 he inherited $6.5 billion in surplus from the previous administration. When he planned not to include a major defense manufacturer to build the TFX and gave that bid to General Dynamics the CIA and their constituents were vey upset. Prouty points out that Kennedy never had any intention in building great offensive systems for war. Kennedy wanted to create a united peace in the world through his reelection by implementing domestic policies that would focus on the problems "at home." He also desired better foreign relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy planned to bring 1000 troops home from Viet Nam by Christmas of 1963. McNamara's report on the Indonesian situation indicated that all military units in Vietnam could be home by Kennedy's due date of 1965. But major corporations having an investment in the manufacturing of war machines do not thrive during peacetime. This was a critical area for Kennedy because of his change in the national policy. Prouty shows that the President's shift prompted many businessmen to seriously think about Kennedy's position as president. This book answers the whys of the cold war period as well as the assassination motives. Prouty's book points out the wasted time in focusing on a "patsy" as the lone assasin of JFK. In all probability Oswald was a soldier carrying out commands from his superior officers not fully knowing the extent of the damage. L. Fletcher Prouty wrote this history from his personal experiences with covert operations and his involvement with government agencies. After reading this book the author leaves one feeling disturbed, yet enlightened by the rich insight he has provided. I am grateful to Colonel Prouty for his willingness to share his knowledge so that many may have an alternative view and perhaps a better understanding regarding the Cold War era.

By Jon W. Davis on October 20, 2004
A Sobering Look Into the Past of JFK and the CIA

Prouty was well postioned to tell his story as seen from inside the intelligence community. Unknown to most people Kennedy challenged the hegemony of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve. In the summer of 1963 Kennedy signed an executive order to create 4 billion dollars in United States Notes, in direct competion to Federal Reserve Notes. Why? The United States Notes were based on the government silver stores and their creation did not create interest payements to the world bankers and owners of the Fed. Bills in denominations of $2, $5, $10, and $20's were authorized and the $2's and $5's were printed and in circulation. The $10's and $20 were being printed when Kenndy was killed. In Johnsons first month in office the US Notes were recalled from circulation. Go to any good coin shop and ask to buy a 1963 US Note. See it for yourself! The one gem in Prouty's book that ties Kennedy to this issue is a few sentences where he discusses Kennedy sending Robert McNamara to meet with the Governors of the Federal Reserve to let them know that there are going to be big changes in the nations money system. There is very little information out there about Kennedy and money and Prouty clearly knew there was a connection. Why is the topic of Kennedy and the money he created so obscure and unknown? The only other president in the history of the country to create US Notes directly from the authority of the US Government was Lincoln with his greenbacks during the civil war. The only two presidents to buck the money powers were both assasinated in office. I think Prouty shows a possible origin of one of the smoking guns.

By A customer on January 4, 1998
The key to the mystery of the crime of the century.

As a United States Marine in the Vietnam war, I never challenged my country's intentions to stem the tide against communist aggression throughout the world. After my extended tour of duty in that war zone, I came home to ponder how we became involved in such a protracted war that divided the country (USA) so. It all points back to the tradgic event on 22 November 1963. With the death of our beloved President Kennedy, the powers to be had free reign to curtail the planned withdrawl of the small amount of troops in that zone. Only 16,000 at that time. This book is an excellent reference to how real events were managed to create so much grief for the people of South Vietnam and the United States. As a former Marine who left enough of his friends to pay the ultimate sacrifice, I highly recommend Colonel Prouty's fine book. "Those of us who made it have an obligation to find the goodness in man and make this world a better place in which to live." Long live the memory of JFK.

Semper Fidelis

Ronald E. Springer on September 22, 2005
America has Waited a Long Time to Hear the Truth...

Finally, those involved are getting old enough not to place concern about their own welfare above truth anymore.

This book provides so many connections, such a depth of behind the scenes knowledge and inner workings of the specific programs operating at the time, you can't help but be bowled over.

***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner.

It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since.

This "High Cabal" as Churchill called them obviously doesn't start with the CIA, or the Federal Reserve. It predates Christianity, but it's quite simple. There are bums who seek handouts and never try to rise, and there are bums who gain a position over others but still yearn for that same handout, taking it by force, by skimming, whatever is necessary to defeat justice, honor and civility. These are not great men and they will not be remembered like an Edison or a Ford. They are the most creative parasites on the planet, and the most deeply engrained.

Currency control has changed EIGHT times since America's inception. The most vocal fighter against irrational banking was Andrew Jackson; not Kennedy or Lincoln (google "Jackson Bank Veto"). He fought and defeated in his time what has morphed into the Federal Reserve Bank. Before the Civil War, such bankers were buying politicians, planting press stories, steering elections, stealing freedoms, killing people--anything to assure a fascist cushion between themselves and existence.

Do we ever hear anything bad about the Federal Reserve? In Jackson's time, they were entrenched 16 years deep and it was difficult to rout them out then. They did try to kill him. Now they are ninety years deep. They have owned many Presidents, they control the Justice and State Departments, and the CIA secretly furthers their agenda.

Nothing happens at the Assassination Level without their approval. In today's world, America is struggling in recession (bankruptcy) mostly due to the $360 Billion we now pay to the Fed for their generous "Debt-Money" System, and that is an exponentially increasing burden. EVERY dollar in our country has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed! Due to this, bankruptcy for America is a mathematical certainty. (Imagine if you had to pay interest not just on every dollar you owed, but on every dollar you made! America IS!)

With changes in the laws, soon none of us will be permitted to walk away from our debts and start over--as if our hard economic times is our own personal fault.

We are all about to become debt slaves, as they intend. If you want to have a chance at recovery, if you want your kids to have a chance at a decent future, join me and I'll give you the Moral Armor neccessary to beat down these parasites and restore America to what it was meant to be. They CAN be defeated, but not without YOUR empowerment. If you can't stand up or are afraid to, I'll show you how. Invest in yourself right now and let's save this ship!

Joshua Lewis on October 4, 2014
They must be pretty well organized

Hard to believe for various reasons. First, other reviewers have commented on the "logic" of the author's arguments. There are, however, numerous fallacies in the book. Lots of, "X happened, and then Y happened, THEREFORE..." but the conclusions are never proven and don't follow logically from the premises. Second, the author doesn't seem to notice some of the absurdities in his thesis when applied to November of 1963. For example, we're told that an international elite working above the leaders elected to the highest offices of government have created and controlled world wide war efforts, power transfers, government overthrows, and economic and monetary conditions among other things, since the end of WWII.

They must be pretty well organized, financed and intelligent to do so. Yet, they were unable to ensure the election of Nixon in the closest election in history up to that point?

Seems odd to be able to start wars but not rig an election that was lost by .02 percent. And, if that isn't a good enough example, let's try another one.

The author gives us several photos in the book of the Dallas "Police" who transported a band of vagabonds on the day JFK was killed and points out the facts that their uniforms aren't standard DPD issue, their uniforms don't match, and their caps and weapons are not standard.

The obvious allusion is that they weren't real policemen and were somehow a part of or hired by this power elite who operated to kill on that day. Yet, wouldn't a "High Cabal" capable of all I mentioned above, have made sure to procure authentic police uniforms, caps, badges and weapons for such an important day, leaving nothing to chance, and preparing for every contingency? It seems like a very sloppy oversight by a group with such limitless powers and ability.

These are just two examples of many where common sense seems to trump the passionate arguments of the author. That being said, there is some interesting information in the book on the inner workings of the CIA and government especially during the Vietnam War. If you are going to read it, just be on the lookout for the faulty logic and use common, critical thinking skills to help sort possibility from probability.

Gary P on January 2, 2013
A few nice nuggets burried in the muck.

In "JFK", Fletcher Prouty shares numerous fascinating observations garnered from his position as a mid-grade officer in what I call the "Conglomerate of Covert Cold Warriors" (OSS/CIA/Military Intelligence/Special Operations/etc) from the 1940s until the early 1960s. Some of the conclusions he draws, however, are completely unsubstantiated and require a real stretch of the imagination.

Chief among these is the existence of some sort of secret "high cabal" of bankers and industrialists (but not the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, Freemasons, Trilateral Commision, Pentaverate,or any other previously speculated secret organization) which has been manipulating the governments of the world into conflicts large and small for at least the last hundred years for the purpose of generating profits on the sale and/or financing of war materials.

Prouty further supposes that the CIA and KGB were the two principal levers with which this supposed cabal have exerted their influence on the world in the post-WWII era.

Prouty also suggests that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were prearranged prior to the close of World War II, and that everything that happened in Vietnam from '45 on was part of a master plan by the OSS/CIA to set the table for a protracted large-scale US engagement in a later decade. Kennedy's intent to deviate from this carefully and painstaking constructed plan for Vietnam supposedly was the instigation for the high cabal to orchestrate his murder.

While Prouty brings to light many interesting connections between the "Conglomerate" and world events, the need to attribute credit/blame for everything to some "invisible elite" group of power brokers who pull the strings of the CIA is difficult to accept. It seems to me that the fact that the CIA was a very insular group, created and led by a small cadre of extremely ambitious ideologues who operated with a nearly unlimited budget and almost no accountability means they were likely responsible on their own for most things that Prouty blames on "the cabal."

At times Prouty contradicts himself, suggesting on one hand that various apparent CIA miscalculations that drag us farther into the Vietnam war were actually intentional, while later claiming that the CIA were surprised when the same actions did not yield any strategic gains.

One last criticism I have is that Prouty often repeats himself. Certain themes are addressed over and over, with little or no additional detail brought to the table. Some passages were so similar to ones in previous chapters I wondered if my kindle was malfunctioning and moving me back to pages I'd already read. I blame this more on the editors than Prouty; they should have restructured his ideas more logically and could have cut 50-100 pages from this book without removing any value.

If you can look past the cabal angle and sloppy organization, there are some interesting ideas presented. Prouty makes a strong case that JFK intended to take the country in a direction in Vietnam that was counter to the aims of the "Conglomerate" and that certain individuals were conspicuously well prepared to reverse that policy in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. He also fairly criticizes the failure of the "Pentagon Papers" to put the the dramatic shift in Vietnam policy that occurred in late November, 1963, in the context of of a violent change in the presidency. His theory that the CIA-sponsored relocation of ~1,000,0000 Tonkinese Vietnamese from the North to the Mekong Delta in the South spawned the Viet Cong is compelling, whether or not you buy his supposition that it was a calculated result.

The fact that Prouty is the mysterious "Mr X" from Garrisons book "On the Trail of the Assassins" and Stone's movie "JFK" is reason enough for any assassination buff to read this book despite the shortcomings. That there are other interesting and salient nuggets burried in the muck of the "high cabal" theme is a bonus.

A customer on September 5, 1999
Prouty long on entrigue - short on facts.

I once had the opportunity to ask Col. Prouty (via e-mail) if he had retained any of the orders he states he received, or could produce another officer who shared his perspective on events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Instead of answers, what I got in return was a geriatric tirade and a sermon on respect for the men who have served this great nation. His thesis on the Bay of Pigs, given documentation now available (_Bay of Pigs Declassified_, 1998 National Security Archive, [...]) demonstrates that, where facts are concerned, Prouty is victim to his own perspective. Prouty reports that JFK was advised through CIA channels that Castro's air force had to be disabled prior to the April 17, Bay of Pigs attack, by Cuban exiles/CIA forces. Prouty states that JFK gave the green light for the initial April 15 attack, which decommissioned all but three of Castro's T-33 aircraft, and conveys that when JFK was advised on April 16 that three planes remained, he authorized their destruction with a second wave attack. Col. Prouty contends that McGeorge Bundy made a secure call to General Charles Cabell (brother of the Dallas mayor when JFK was assassinated, Earle Cabell) giving the president's approval, but that Cabell delayed deployment of the exile air force at Nicaragua. The Colonel contends that Cabell's delay in passing the order was the reason Kennedy later had him relieved of duty, and that the Mayor of Dallas retaliated for his brother's dismissal by participating in JFK's assassination.

Prouty makes the case that Cabell foiled any chances of success for the maritime operation by delaying the order for the B-26 aircraft to return to Cuba and destroy three remaining T-33s. But, Prouty is way off the mark on this one. Recently released documentation proves JFK wanted deniabilty and did not authorize the second wave of air attacks. While a question may remain as to whether the CIA adequately briefed Kennedy on the importance of the second wave attacks by the Cuban exiles, there is little doubt that whomever or whatever caused Prouty to print his version of the events will not contribute to Prouty's reputation for accuracy when confidently stating things as fact.

In a realm where hard evidence is a must, Prouty tells interesting tales. If his accounts of the events are to be believed, Col Prouty should furnish us military sources who agree with the Colonel, or concede that historically he simply cannot prove his assertions.

Evelyn Uyemura VINE VOICE on September 15, 2013
Half Credible, Half Not

What a sad mess of a book. It is really unfortunate that the people who were active adults in 1963 are now approaching their dotage, 50 years later, and in addition, that few serious publishers will touch the more controversial points of view with a 10-foot pole. As a result, we get books like this, from someone who might actually know something, but who can't write or edit a book into shape so that we can tell whether it makes any sense.

Prouty has several bugs in his bonnet:

  1. There is a secret Cabal of elites who run the entire world and have for centuries. Presidents and generals are puppets, mostly clueless as to what is really going on. (barely credible.)
  2. The fact that the earth is round, plus Malthus and Darwin, are the keys to the past 500 years of history, and the source of private property, colonialism, and pretty much all evil. (not credible to me.)
  3. Before WW2 had even ended, the US had already decided that its ally, the USSR, was going to be its next enemy and that Germany would be its ally, and started acting on this in the closing days of the war. The reason for this decision is that we, like all countries, need perpetual war to maintain sovereignty. (semi-credible--I doubt that any of this was conscious, if it happened at all.)
  4. A decision was made in 1945 that after WW2, we would next fight in Korea and Vietnam, and we sent weapons there for that purpose. (not credible to me. Yes, we may have sent weapons there, but I really doubt that there was a master plan in place.)

By now you're probably wondering what any or all of this has to do with the assassination of JFK. Well, that's the problem--this book is so all over the place that he spends essentially the whole book on deep background stuff, and the actual explanation of what this has to do with Kennedy is scattered throughout the book. He keeps bringing the story up to 1963 in every chapter, and then backtracking again and again. And again!

However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) He *did* found a thing called the Peace Corps. He did give a speech at an American university that is called his Peace speech. Supposedly, he and Khrushchev were sort of pen pals, and they had both stared into the nuclear abyss and decided to make love not war.

Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me.

Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again.

I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!)

And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out.

I am fairly knowledgeable about the assassination scenarios, but I found this book rough going, because it goes into a lot of political detail about the internal politics of Vietnam as well as very detailed descriptions of Washington politics. Perhaps if you are a bit older than me (I was 11 in 1963), or more knowledgeable about all the names and politics of that time, it would all come together. But a good editor would have helped tremendously to make it accessible to the general public.

Curt Butler on March 2, 2008
Who was Maj. Gen. E.G. ?

In Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in the Mall Scene meeting between D.A. Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) and "Man X" (played by Donald Sutherland), a flashback scene presented a nameplate from the desk of an Air Force military general speaking on the phone, and partialy showing his name as Maj/Gen. E.G. (unknown)?

Who was Stone attempting to make reference to and cast aspersions upon Maj. General E.G. Lansdale?

Does anybody know?? Will check back from time-to-time is see "IF" any comments are posted to my inquiry. Thanks!

R. Anderson on March 28, 2005
Completely Ludicrus

Contrary to popular belief today, Kennedy was a cold warrior. There is no evidence at all that he was (in his second term, if he even got one) going to end the cold war, or pull out of Vietnam. Michael Lind in his book 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' addresses this issue, and points out that the record clearly shows otherwise.

Several of the people who claim that Kennedy told them he was going to pull out of Vietnam revealed this information in the late 60's after the war had become traumatic for the country. Robert McNamara (one of the original architects of the Vietnam War), who has speculated for years that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam, admits that Kennedy never told him he was going to pull out.

In an interview with Walter Cronkite a few months before he was assassinated Kennedy said (about Vietnam): "I think it would be a mistake to withdraw." Oliver Stone (cleverly), only shows bits and pieces of the interview at the beginning of JFK. Editing the interview to make it look like Kennedy was going to withdraw. In fact, the day he was assassinated Kennedy gave a speech endorsing our involvement in Vietnam. The claim that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam is speculation at best. Go to : [...]

This post details many of the myths surrounding JFK's policy stances, and shows that (by today's standards) Kennedy (most likely) would have been a moderate Republican. There was no motive (as Prouty claims) to kill Kennedy.

Also go to: [...]

For some more of Prouty's crackpot opinions.

Kennedy was a cold warrior: he was conspicuously absent (as a representative from Massachusetts) when the House of Representatives voted to censure Joseph McCarthy (he even praised McCarthy on several occasions). He ran against Nixon in 1960 on the missile gap (i.e. we were behind the Soviets in the number of ICBM's). He said in his inaugural address: "......Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Doesn't sound to me like he was going to "bug out" of Vietnam.

Also, check out: [...]

This further debunks the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam.

[Nov 01, 2017] Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

It would be interesting to explore possible connection of Browder and MI6. Why he changed his citizenship to British as the scandal unfolded?
Notable quotes:
"... For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. ..."
"... The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. ..."
"... However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. ..."
"... This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. ..."
"... Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. ..."
"... While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. ..."
"... The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? ..."
"... In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." ..."
"... Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. ..."
"... From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked): ..."
"... Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license? Browder: I'm sorry. I Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?" Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200? Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree? Browder: No. ..."
"... The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work. ..."
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Oct 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth

Exclusive: In pursuit of Russia-gate, the U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia and works to ensure that Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky myth, reports Robert Parry.

As Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case.

The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology companies – under intense political pressure – to unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers" (with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then stigmatize that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using major search engines.

For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth.

Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.

The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie.

However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary.

Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials. For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia.

Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend.

The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection.

So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means necessary.

This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term.

Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot."

Magnitsky and Russia-gate

The Magnitsky controversy now has merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story.

Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, " A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower ," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's honesty.

Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud.

While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme.

The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims?

As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in a recent article on the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court deposition in a related criminal case.

In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No."

Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower.

The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with $230 million in refunded taxes.

Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood, the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative.Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they get to define reality, which – in many ways – is what they want to do in the future by exploiting the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information.

Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming evidence of his deceptions.

Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that.

[For details on the Nekrasov documentary, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Blacklisted Film and the New Cold War. "]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

BobH , October 28, 2017 at 9:48 pm

It seems the neo-liberal establishment in the West is ready to take in any Russian dissident seeking refuge while the victims of Western aggression are denied asylum.
http://en.rfi.fr/culture/20171019-russian-artist-detained-over-paris-bank-blaze

Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 9:10 am

Yes, Congress measures human worth in bribes: more from rich immigrants than from poor refugees. We are fortunate to have Mr. Parry expose the corruption of oligarchy and its control of mass media and elections.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 11:54 am

Yes, Sam F, I signed on to that one some time ago I'm sure the NYT has a waste basket somewhere that is full of "Russian trolls".

orayates5454 , October 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm

Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here

. http://bit.do/online-Job-today44

Sendero Santos , October 30, 2017 at 3:25 am

Spam a lot.

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:07 pm

"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:09 pm

Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:11 pm

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm

William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 7:58 am

Thank you. Who would expect all these crimes and lies from a progeny of a Jewish communist Browder!

This is priceless: "The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings." In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust."

Lois Gagnon , October 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Good info, but not surprising. Covering up the syndicate's global crime spree is priority #1. If we view all events through this lens, it all makes perfect sense.

MrK , October 29, 2017 at 12:06 am

More on Beny and Danny Steinmetz and Dany Gertler here:

Chloe's Blood Diamonds
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chloe-s-blood-diamond/7423

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Interesting link, thanks, MrK

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Abe, thanks for the informative backgrounder. The Goldberg link is also interesting, although I note he signs on to the Russian Hacking myth and the "Magnitsky murder" theory.

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm

"First they went after "

In video interview featured on Mikhail Khodorkovsky's website, Browder compared Khodorkovsky and himself to victims of the Nazi regime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=0KvFQHLIvWI [minutes 4:10-4:50

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 12:50 pm

Leading pro-Israel senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman were key promoters of the Magnitsky Act, which was signed into law in 2012.

Browder then published a book, Red Notice, leading to a string of TV appearances.

Outside the Daily Show's studios in New York on 3 February 2015, Browder was served a subpoena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Browder tried to refuse to accept the subpoena and fled.

United States Federal Judge, Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling that compels Browder to travel to New York for a deposition.

Browder's lawyer, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said Browder "does not have to consent to a deposition." He claimed that Browder is living and working in England and is currently carrying a British passport. Browder is a former U.S. citizen.

In his ruling, Judge Griesa emphasized that Browder must comply with the subpoena in New York because he conducts his business in the city on a "reasonably regular basis."

Browder's lawyer argued that the hedge fund manager was unable to attend in a deposition because there are "credible threats" to his personal safety. In response, the judge pointed out that the threats did not prevent Browder from going to different cable news networks to promote his book.

The federal court's order for Browder was connected to the civil case filed by federal prosecutors in Manhattan against Russian businessman Denis Katsyv.

Browder had urged prosecutors to file lawsuits against Katsyv, who denied the allegations against him. The lawyer representing Katsyv repeatedly tried to serve subpoenas to Browder as the primary source of information in the complaint against the Russian businessman.

Browder opted to run away instead of complying with the subpoena.

Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm

Carden, the senator from AIPAC was and is a key supporter!

Thanks, Abe, for your informative posts. The stench on this one takes the Israeli lapdogs in congress to new lows. Congress is either willfully uninformed or totally ignorant on the facts in this case, maybe a distinction without a difference.

Abe , October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Congress is either willfully uninformed nor totally ignorant

They're bought and paid for by the pro-Israel Lobby.

falcemartello , October 30, 2017 at 11:40 pm

@Abe its called the Kosher Nostra. Exceeds anything the Neapolitans or Sicilians have managed. Most people relate syndicated crime to Southern Italians . We can thank Hollywood for that and that says it all . Lansky and Co have been running the mob for years but it's we southern Italians that get the label of mobster. Russian jewish mobsters are behind most of the crimes of graft ,drugs and prostitution ,human trafficking, organ trafficking . You name it. They came to the forefront starting from the deliberate Balkanising of the FDRY Yugoslavia and the implosion of the USSR under Yeltsin they grew exponentially. The Godfather of this international Ashkenazi judaic crime organisation is Semion Mogilevich born in the Ukraine in the 40's. This guy makes Capone and Lucky Luciano look like choir boys., but everybody relates mobsters to these southern Italians how bizarre that the truth is always something else.

Zachary Smith , October 29, 2017 at 12:29 am

Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, "denied visits from his family" and "forced into increasingly squalid cells." He developed gall stones, pancreatitis and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his incarceration. Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan P. Prokopenko later said that he " did not consider Magnitsky sick Prisoners often try to pass themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions."

In prison without a trial. Worsening medical condition ignored. As the year time-limit approached, Magnitsky was badly beaten – probably in a last ditch attempt to force the State's wishes on him.

Whether guilty or innocent, this shouldn't happen to a dog. But it happened with him, and is happening this very moment all over the fine nation we call wonderful, Exceptional, and all that. Privatized prisons who won't waste more than an aspirin tablet on an inmate. Low paid goons who get away with darned near anything they want, even if THEY beat a prisoner to death. Or kill him by choking him. Or by denying him water.

Nobody cares what goes on overseas – unless they can turn an individual gross miscarriage of justice into another attack on Russia. Nobody cares here, either. I still recall my shock and disgust at people who posed as "liberals" daydreaming about Carl Rove being put in the same cell with the sex-starved pervert "Big Bubba".

Exceptional my ***!

tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:20 am

and meanwhile, in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, USA another innocent person died in the county jail. Count that on five fingers, 5 people
dead in Milwaukee County Jail is as many months. GO USA MAGA

Lex , October 29, 2017 at 4:37 am

There is actually no credible evidence the accused accountant was beaten, this is just part of Browder's big story to avoid paying taxes – like he has done his entire life. Even so, the people working at the prison were all punished in Russia, yet somehow Russia is still the villain – when was the last time you heard of US prison staff being punished for negligence or abuse? I've read a book (also censored) about this whole affair, and it includes a lengthy section about the financial crimes visited on Russia in the 90s by people like Browder, and it amounts to crimes against humanity. Browder should be in a Russian prison, but instead his lies have caused both the US and Canada to pass punitive sanctions against an entire nation – and lead the world down a path towards war between the two largest nuclear powers. Spread the word – Browder is a charlatan and a crook, and Magnitsky was likely thrown to the wolves by him.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 11:24 am

"Browder is a charlatan and a crook" – True. And here is a documentary to read, "The Killing of William Browder:"
https://archive.org/stream/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1#page/n3/mode/1up

And, by the way, here is a real persecution, in the US: "The Persecution of Norman Finkelstein"
https://www.change.org/p/janet-difiore-chief-judge-of-the-state-of-new-york-norman-g-finkelstein-must-walk-free

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:02 am

You really believe in each word of the well-known Jewish fraudster Browder?

Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 8:57 am

It does seem most likely that Magnitsky simply lied about medical conditions; I have known zionists to do that all their lives in yet another fake plea for special privileges. If the prison manager really did not believe him, it is poetic justice in action.

US prisoners are in general the poor. Magnitsky was imprisoned for robbing the poor, a different matter altogether. The Magnitsky Act proves that the US Congress cares for no one, but will take bribes to pretend to care for the rich. Tell them that he was cheating zionists and they will repeal the act.

Putin Apologist , October 29, 2017 at 1:47 am

Alex Krainer's book "The Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" does a good job of exposing William Browder's fraud. It's a quick read about 200 pages. Amazon has banned the book but eBay has it, for now.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Killing-of-William-Browder-Deconstructing-Bill-Browders-Dangerous-Deceptio/311966014830?hash=item48a29f9d6e:g:GNMAAOSwE9RZxce5

Here's Browder running, in an attempt to avoid being served with a subpoena outside the Daily Show's studios in New York. What a f***ing coward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 2:18 am

Why does it even matter what we Americans think of Browder's dealings with said Russian officials? Not to sound uncaring of human strive or anything like that, but shouldn't we Americans allow the Russians the right of their own laws and sovereignty to settle their own affairs? Shouldn't we Americans be more concerned with how many to a few had died in our own American prisons last year, and why does our land of the free America have such a huge prison population?

This Browder Road is Road we Americans should not go down. There is no reason we should, and Browder's story is too controversial by the poor credibility of his own accusations. There is a oligarchical fist fight going on over there in Russia, and it's former satellites, and America should let that region iron out their own differences. Read Phil Butler over at New Eastern Onion, and the Saker, these guys like Robert Parry are on to this Zionist intrusion.

tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:15 am

Hi joe,
I know you guys are a bit older than I , but growing up in Munich, Germany in the 70's and 80's , was a lot different from you guys in the 60's. Afghanistan 1977, Tehran, Iran 1979, The usa did so much damage, 1953 the brits and usa overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran. Why should anyone like or welcome American troops? Since ww2, they have done nothing but wreak hatred in the world. I wish I could like this country, but I just can't

Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 5:45 am

Well let me tell ya my young friend tina, the best of America isn't being portrayed at this moment by our media to well these days. In the land of the free, are a lot of nice people tina, but they like you are in the midst these days of being pulled apart from the top down. Most of this tearing apart has been accomplished by the politicians misuse of holding up identity civil rights issues as cover for their own selfish gains. This identity issue is used, since returning to the days of the FDR New Deal is an improbable campaign promise, all because both political parties have done a fine job of destroying that very political uplifting program set in place some eighty years ago.

So tina you don't need to love the current government in the U.S., but to be patient a little while longer and then you may try and learn to like, or love if you will, the American individual, whoever that individual is you are fortunate enough to meet. On the other hand you could just go to Holland. Joe

Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Tina-

I am wondering why anyone anywhere would ever welcome any foreign troops in their own country. I am certain that one thing that would be a bi-partisan agreement for US citizens is that no foreign troops are welcome here, especially to "show" us how to run our country. I find it very strange that so few Americans seem to be able to make the logical jump to assume the same of other countries' citizens.

Jessica K , October 29, 2017 at 7:15 am

Browder is a sleaze, and the fact that he can be called a "human rights activist" in the US shows how low oligarchy and its congressional minions can go. He can't stand that Putin and the Duma went after him, among other oligarchs and big money crooks, when the US tried to scavenge Russia (which they still want to do).

Thank you for that information, Abe, on Browder's past and present shady connections. And Lex, please tell me what is the book you read on the case? And who can we get to show this film in this age of suppressed truth?

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 11:27 am

The book about Browder: https://archive.org/stream/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1#page/n3/mode/1up

Herman , October 29, 2017 at 7:21 am

When you read articles in CN and those of the commentators the evidence against their targets seems so one sided, that the truth must be somewhere in between. But then, for example, you read works by people like Pappe' on Israel and recently Stephen Cohen on our distortions of events and so many others and you come to understand that what these folks are saying is true and then you wonder how can it change for the better when all the usual avenues of expression are guarded by the deciders. Perhaps why we have become so tortured by this reality is that we better understand it because of the information revolution, that what is always was. And perhaps we will all be saved by those who have decided we are not getting the right information. Perhaps if their algorythyms(sp?) succeed, we will all feel better, less conflicted. We will all come to understand that shock and awe in Iraq was not a human tragedy but wonderful entertainment.

anon , October 29, 2017 at 8:42 am

algorithms. Yes, the truth of control of US mass media and elections by oligarchy is unpleasant but essential medicine.

GMC , October 29, 2017 at 7:26 am

In the interview of Magnitsky's mother, she was asked when her son graduated from Law school. She stated that he never went to Law school – he's an accountant . Even his Mother knew he was not honest – LOL So, what can we expect from a US government when they will kill Our President , cover it up, and hide it from those that believe in them ? Nothing ! And for the record – Putin claimed that 80% of those in control before the break-up of the Soviet Union – were Zionists and jewish oligarchs. Guess who is running the US government and has already stolen most of the public funds as Soc. Sec. etc. ? oo dah chee !

Realist , October 29, 2017 at 8:00 am

Yeah, apparently Congress and two presidents can't handle the truth, and figure that you can't either.

The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

"Their" "journalists:"
"The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad. Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America."

Is Mozgovaya so naive and pure that she has no idea that Browder was and is a Malicious Fraud? The tribal solidarity makes Mozgovaya an eager coolaborator with the Jewish moneyed filth, the journalistic integrity is of no concern for her. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/boss-of-slain-russian-whistleblower-to-haaretz-obama-administration-trying-to-appease-putin-1.440511
"The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans:" https://www.veteranstodaynews.com/2013/05/19/223756-the-staggering-cost-of-israel-to-americans/

Realist , October 29, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I am impressed with the knowledge many readers of CN have of these events. You almost qualify as bone fide "Putin Puppets" under federal statute. I, myself, am only aware of the basic outline of the story, but most Americans, I am sure, have never even heard of Magnitsky or Browder. To them, "Browder" probably means an American actor. Most of Congress probably believes Magnitsky was one Putin's many "political enemies" he had "assassinated" by exotic means. Can you imagine how deep this would all be buried, and yet exploited to the hilt to punish Russia, if Hillary now sat in the White House? Facts and narratives, entirely two different things. One you are denied, the other you are force fed in Amerika.

David G , October 29, 2017 at 9:22 am

"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible."

It's been tried.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

mike k , October 29, 2017 at 10:54 am

"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible." Wonderful comment – that sums it all up exactly. Those who are the master criminals in our society seek to operate in complete secrecy, so that they can do whatever they wish to their unsuspecting victims, and cloak themselves in an aura of righteousness. Those who seek to expose the truth of their machinations become their most feared and hated enemies.

Gary , October 29, 2017 at 9:58 am

We Americans didn't want to hear the truth when our own government assassinated the Kennedys and MLK in the 1960, or when we were "secretly" saturation bombing Cambodia, or overthrowing democracy in Chile, or creating Islamic terrorists and funding them with drugs in Afghanistan, or running drugs for gun in Iran-Contra, or training our deaths squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, or killing a half million Iraqi children, because, well, "Saddam is a dictator" – the list is virtually endless of truths we Americans simply didn't and/or don't want to know. Collectively we're like some grotesque ugly monster that looks into our very special magic mirror (corporate media) which rather then tell us the truth, instead tells us we are so beautiful and so exceptional and so indispensable to the world, and above all the laws that apply to mere mortals. And now more and more any attempts to remove the mirror and let the truth seep through must be endlessly suppressed by the power structure. Another example of this is the recent suppression of the English language version of the German book "Bought Journalists," which looks at the corruption and manipulation of media in Europe by the CIA

https://www.globalresearch.ca/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/5601857

This level of censorship suggests a rather fragile system trying desperately to maintain control.

Stefan , October 29, 2017 at 10:07 am

Jessica K. I think the book you are looking for is "The Killing of william browder" (Lower case intentional) by Alex Krainer . Do not waste your time going to amazon.

Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:29 am

This book can be downloaded free. Search for the book name and you should get the website among the first hits on google. (archive org.)

I'll give the complete link below (as the links may delay the comment publication).

Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:31 am

Here is the link: https://archive.org/details/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91

I've downloaded it but haven't gotten very far. There is so much to read and investigate every day – and a life needs to be lived at the same time

Riva Enteen , October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm

I recently asked an anti-Putin Ukrainian how she would define oligarch. She said somebody with lots of money who uses it for political influence. What you call lobbyists.

Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm

Browder is such an obvious scumbag. How anyone could watch this youtube of him attempting to dodge a subpoena in NYC, and not see him for what he is is beyond me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Jerry Alatalo , October 29, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Can men and women who read this able to arrange interviews (via print, radio or video) of Sergei Nekrasov for the purpose of fully informing the American people on the hugely important Magnitsky controversy please do so quickly? Thank you. Peace.

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm

For the purpose of fully informing the American people, it's important to interview Andrei Nekrasov.

Not so important to interview retired Russian athlete Sergei N.

Jerry Alatalo , October 29, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Abe,

Thank you very much for the correction, in that our comment mis-named the film's director as "Sergei" instead of correctly as Andrei. Thank you as well for the many insightful comments you make here, alongside the many other men and women followers who've been contributing through excellent comments at Consortium News. Thank you, again. Peace.

Elizabeth Burton , October 29, 2017 at 2:31 pm

From the NYT piece cited: "The matching messages point to a synchronized information campaign."

I've come to the conclusion that one of the best indicators of a propaganda campaign is when the participants are completely void of any sense of irony.

ranney , October 29, 2017 at 5:57 pm

Robert, as always, you provide a clear presentation of the subject. I would indeed like to protest the censorship of this film as I'm sure lots of others would after reading your articles on the subject – but how does one do that???
Who should we protest to? Is there a petition going 'round? Or is there any other way to protest? Is there a person or government agency we can protest to who has the power to get the film shown? Is there a film agency to write to? Is the film seriously banned – or is it just that people in the film industry are scared to death of some payback? If that is the case, what sort of threat is held over them?
In any case, you can understand that those of us who would like to protest have no idea where to start. Have you any suggestions?

Alex Krainer , October 30, 2017 at 6:04 am

There's a serious problem somewhere in the legal framework, possibly in most western countries. A lawyer petitions a publisher to suppress some materials and threatens lawsuits and the publishers oblige. In my book's case they claimed defamatory content but have no obligation to prove anything. The claim is sufficient. Then Amazon instructed me to work it out with Browder and his lawyers. The really scary implication of thsi is that if you ar lawyered-up elite you can effectively control what may be said and written about you and censor any content that challenges your own narrative. For most people by far fighting for their right of freedom of expression in court is prohibitive and impossible. As author, I'm forced to wrangle this right throught the legal system against far more powerful player. In effect, freedom of expression has been voided in the west, sadly.

Skip Folden , October 29, 2017 at 7:36 pm

"The killing of William Crowder", Alex Krainer, 2017, (a critique of Crowder's Red Notice, was also almost immediately de-listed by Amazon due to Crowder Attorneys

Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm

This is a link to an article summarizing Browder's criminal activities:

https://100r.org/2017/10/master-of-reinvention/

(I know next to nothing about the org "100 Reporters )

Summary might even be a tad understated but that is fine-we get enough of the clutch pearls hysteria from "the other sources."

Alex Krainer , October 30, 2017 at 5:58 am

From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked):

Browder's deposition in the Prevezon case in Dec. 2015:

Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license?
Browder: I'm sorry. I
Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?"
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200?
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
Browder: No.

There's so much more. Scratch the surface and Browder's hoax is hysterically childish like a high school punk contrived it.

Skip Scott , October 31, 2017 at 12:41 pm

The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work.

j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,

GoMovies , October 30, 2017 at 10:44 pm

There has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.

[Oct 31, 2017] Sorting Out the Russia Mess

Notable quotes:
"... Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). ..."
"... Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief projects in America? If so, how did this come about? ..."
www.strategic-culture.org

Knomore , October 31, 2017 at 2:20 pm

A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away. This story seems to suggest either massive chutzpah on the part of the Clinton campaign or stupidity fueled by desperation.

That they would allow Mueller's investigation to go forward when they were sitting on a mountain of graft, collusion and other malfeasance (i.e., uranium sold to Russia for among other things half a million straight into Billl's pocket) all of it, really quite amazing.

We got two uniformly bad candidates in the 2016 elections, both of whom were/are ardent supporters of Israel. How did that happen?

And Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief projects in America? If so, how did this come about?

[Oct 31, 2017] The Dangerous Trend Threatening the Future of the Nation-State by John Feffer

Weak article but some valuable observations: "Since these [neoliberal] figures and institutions delivered an economics of inequality and a foreign policy of war over the last three decades, the flight from the center is certainly understandable." ... "Secessionist movements are gaining momentum" ... "Those who might enjoy an EU-style frisson of schadenfreude look at Europe's ills as a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Many European governments supported the American-led conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria that have shattered the Greater Middle "
He does not understand that neoliberalism, and , especially, neoliberal globalization, generates powerful splash of nationalism. So in Europe 2020th might be a repeat 1920th on a new level. As colonialism under neoliberalism was replaced by neo-colonialism in a form of debt slavery and enforcement of Washington consensus, what we observe is the start of blowback.
In a way nationalism remain the only viable option ion the fight against neoliberalism.
Oct 25, 2017 | fpif.org
... ... ...

Sure, most Americans don't yet fall into irreconcilable factions . But if you consider the transformation of Yugoslavia from vacation spot to killing field in two short years after 1989, it's easier to imagine how a few demagogues, with their militant supporters, could use minority passions in this country to neutralize majority sentiments. All of which suggests why the "American carnage" that Trump invoked in his inaugural address could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course, it's not just Donald Trump. Globally speaking, the fledgling American president is more symptom than cause. The United States is just now catching up to much of the rest of the world as President Trump, from his bullying pulpit, does whatever he can to make America first in fractiousness.

When it comes to demagogues and divisiveness, however, he has plenty of competition -- in Europe, the Middle East, indeed all over our splintering planet.

The Multiplication of Division

The recent referendum on independence in Catalonia is a reminder that a single well-timed blow can break apart the unitary states of Europe as if they were nothing but poorly made piñatas. True, it's not clear how many Catalans genuinely want independence from Spain. Those who participated in the referendum there opted overwhelmingly in favor of secession, but only 42 percent of voters even bothered to register their preference. In addition, the announced relocation of 531 companies to other parts of the country is a sobering reminder of the potential economic consequences of secession. However the standoff may be resolved, though, separatist sentiments are not about to vanish in Catalonia, particularly given the Spanish government's heavy-handed attempts to stop the vote.

Such splittism is potentially contagious. After Britons narrowly supported Brexiting the European Union (EU) in a referendum in 2016, the Scots again began talking about independence -- about, that is, separating from their southern cousins while remaining within the EU. Catalans have a different dilemma. A declaration of independence would promptly sever the new country from the European Union, even as the move might spread independence fever to other groups in Spain, particularly the Basques .

The British and the Catalans have delivered something like a prolonged one-two punch to the EU, which until recently had been in continuous expansion: from six member states in 1957 to 28 today. Losing both Great Britain and Catalonia would mean kissing goodbye to more than one-fifth of that organization's economic output. (According to 2016 numbers , the United Kingdom contributes 2.7 trillion euros and Catalonia 223 billion euros to the EU's 14.8 trillion euro gross domestic product.) That's the economic equivalent of California and Florida peeling off from the United States.

The question is whether the British and Catalan votes are the culmination of a mini-trend or the beginning of the end. Although Brexit actually gave a boost to the EU's popularity across its member states (including England), Brussels continues to experience pushback from those states on immigration, financial bailouts, and the process of decision-making.

Euroskeptic movements like the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and the Freedom Party in Austria have met with growing success and rising voter support, even in Euro-friendly countries. In that continent's future lie: a possible Czexit as a right-wing billionaire takes over as prime minister of the Czech Republic and looks to create a governing coalition with a vehemently anti-immigrant and anti-EU partner; a Nexit if Euroskeptic Geert Wilders succeeds in expanding his political base further in the Netherlands; and even an Italexit as voters there have bucked the "Brexit effect," with 57 percent now favoring a referendum on membership.

... ... ...

Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to the consolidation of the French nation in the nineteenth century, for instance, the inhabitants of the country thought of themselves as Bretons, Provençals, Parisians, and the like. Contrary to various founding myths, the nation didn't exist from time immemorial. It had to be conjured into existence -- and for a reason.

The nineteenth century witnessed the first great modern shattering as people weaponized the new concept of "nation" and companion notions of ethnic solidarity and popular sovereignty in their struggles against empires. The revolutions of 1825 in Greece and Russia, the 1848 "spring of nations" throughout Europe, the subsequent unification of Germany and Italy -- all were blows against the empires presided over by the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Ottoman sultans.

World War I then dispatched those weakened empires to their graves in one huge conflagration. After the war ended, a Middle East of heterogeneous nation-states and a new group of independent Balkan countries emerged from the defunct Ottoman Empire. Imperial Russia briefly fragmented into dozens of smaller states until the Soviet Union glued them back together by force. The house of the Habsburgs fell and the Central European countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary crawled out from under the wreckage.

The second great shattering, which stretched across the middle span of the twentieth century, accompanied the collapse of the colonial empires. The British, French, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, and German overseas colonies all achieved independence, and a new global map of nation-states emerged in Africa, Asia, and to a lesser extent Latin America where decolonization had largely occurred a century earlier.

... ... ...

Consider, for instance, the impact of economic globalization. The expansion of trade, investment, and corporate activity has long had the effect of drawing nations together -- into cartels like OPEC, trade communities like the European Union, and international institutions like the International Monetary Fund. By the 1970s, however, economic globalization was eating away at the exclusive prerogative of the nation-state to control trade or national currencies or implement policies regulating the environment, health and safety, and labor.

At the same time, particularly in industrialized countries like the United Kingdom and the United States , income inequality increased dramatically. The wealth gap is now worse in the United States than in Iran or the Philippines. Among the top industrialized countries, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the gap between the richest 10 percent of the population and the poorest 10 percent has grown appreciably larger.

Even among countries where inequality has dropped because of government efforts to redistribute income, the perception has grown that globalization favors the rich, not the poor. Fewer than half of French respondents to a 2016 YouGov poll believed that globalization was a force for good -- even though income inequality has fallen in that country since the 1970s. Having once reduced tensions among countries and strengthened the nation-state, economic globalization increasingly pits peoples against one another within countries and among countries.

Other forms of globalization have had a similar effect. Facebook and Twitter, for instance, have connected people in unprecedented ways and provided a mechanism to mobilize against a variety of societal ills, including dictators, trigger-happy police, and sexual harassers. But the other side of the ability to focus organizing efforts within digital affinity groups is the way such platforms Balkanize their users, not by ethnicity as much as by political perspective. Information or opinions challenging one's worldview that once appeared in the newspaper or occasionally on the evening news get weeded out in the Facebook newsfeed or the Twitter stream of one's favorite amplifiers.

Ethnic cleansing by decree has been largely overtaken by ideological cleansing by consent. What's the point of making the necessary compromises to function in a diverse nation-state when you can effectively secede from society and hang with your homies in a virtual community?

Given the polarizing impact of economic and technological globalization, it's no surprise that the politics of the middle has either disappeared or, because of a weak left, drifted further to the right. Donald Trump is the supreme expression of this stunning loss of faith in centrist politicians as well as such pillars of the institutional center as the mainstream media.

Since these figures and institutions delivered an economics of inequality and a foreign policy of war over the last three decades, the flight from the center is certainly understandable. What's new, however, is the way Trump and other right-wing populists have stretched this disaffection, which might ordinarily have powered a new left, to encompass what might be called the three angers over: immigration, the expansion of civil rights, and middle-class entitlement programs. Fueled by a revulsion for the center, Trump is not simply interested in undermining his political opponents and America's adversaries. He has a twin project, promoted for decades by the extreme right, of destroying the federal government and the international community.

That's why the fourth great shattering is different. In the past, people opposed empires, colonial powers, and the ideological requirements of the Cold War by banding together in more compact nation-states. They were still willing to sacrifice on behalf of their unknown compatriots -- to redistribute tax revenues or follow rules and regulations -- just on a smaller scale.

Nationalism hasn't gone away. Those who want to preserve a unitary state (Spain) as well as those who want out of the same state (Catalonia) appeal to similarly nationalist sentiments. But today, the very notion of acting in solidarity with people in a territorial unit presided over by a state is fast becoming passé. Citizens are in flight from taxes, multiculturalism, public education, and even the guarantee of basic human rights for all. The fourth great shattering seems to be affecting the very bonds that constitute the nation-state, any nation-state, no matter how big or small.

[Oct 30, 2017] It might well be that Trump now completly depends on generals to stay in power. He simply has nobody else to rely upon

Notable quotes:
"... Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta. ..."
"... "Comply or we'll quit"? That's not a coup, that's a strike. ..."
"... Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him. ..."
"... The Republic ends, one way or another, as an oligarchic military dictatorship. Or so our elites would have it, to avoid democratic accountability. The common people never want war and that just won't do. ..."
"... I think Kirt is correct when he says, "Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him." ..."
"... A. J. Bacevich writes about T. Friedman: "The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus." Couldn't agree more and I would add that the "glib prophet of globalization" is not only glib and bogus, he is not even flat he is 1D (one dimentional) as one can be. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

And the solution? McCain doesn't quite say, instead descending into sheer babble: "We need a strategy that lifts our sights above the tactical level and separates the urgent from the truly important." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but my guess is that, if pressed for details, McCain will argue for more war, not less. He will ignore what the wars he has so energetically endorsed have cost and what little they have accomplished.

And yet McCain's column stands as a model of logic and circumspection in comparison to Thomas Friedman's. If McCain's reputation has spiked upward lately, Friedman's has tanked, at least so it seems to me. The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus.

The title of Friedman's piece takes the form of a directive: "General Mattis, Stand Up to Trump or He'll Drag You Down." Friedman begins, as he so often does, by quoting himself at length. In an earlier column, he had instructed Trump's generals -- Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster -- to "stand up and reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration from the top." They failed to comply.

Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as "the last man standing -- the only one who has not been infected by Trump's metastasizing ethical cancer, the only one who has not visibly lied on Trump's behalf, and who can still put some fear into Trump" -- to seize control of the situation and save the Republic from the individual elected to the presidency less than a year ago.

"Secretary Mattis," Friedman writes, "we don't need any more diagnosis of the problem. We need action." The necessary action is this: Along with Kelly and McMaster, Mattis should tell Trump "that if he does not change his ways you will all quit, en masse."

"Trump needs to know that it is now your way or the highway -- not his," Friedman writes, certain that the threat of collective resignation will bring Trump to heel. In effect, he is urging Trump's generals to coerce their commander-in-chief into relinquishing the authority that is rightly his according to the Constitution. They will make the decisions. Trump will sign the necessary paperwork.

Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta.

What does it say about the state of public discourse that views such as these appear in what is ostensibly the nation's most influential publication? You decide. But I think it says that the crisis facing our country is much bigger than Trump.

Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.

fish guts , says: October 29, 2017 at 11:37 pm

You sure picked a prime pair of bozos. In their different ways, McCain and Friedman embody what the rotten DC establishment and how it got that way.

I'm not surprised that their drivel is still being peddled by the NY Times. It'll be a great pleasure to see what happens to the perps and their cozy little institutions over the next few years.

paradoctor , says: October 30, 2017 at 2:38 am
"Comply or we'll quit"? That's not a coup, that's a strike. Ask Flake how effective this tactic is.
Edward Lippman , says: October 30, 2017 at 3:02 am
Friedman has said wackier stuff before.

http://fair.org/home/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-with-isis/

"Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?"

Friedman, 18 March 2015

Kirt Higdon , says: October 30, 2017 at 6:39 am
Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him.
Kevin on the Left , says: October 30, 2017 at 7:36 am
"Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta."

I'm not a fan of Friedman, putting it mildly, and his column is indicative of a second grader's understanding of American politics, but advocating for mass resignation is..not advocating for a coup.

Johann , says: October 30, 2017 at 8:08 am
Its pretty ironic that before the election, during a Trump/Clinton debate, when Trump was asked if he would honor the election results, he said something like "We'll see". The establishment went bonkers and feigned moral outrage at Trump for not giving an unqualified statement of supporting the election results. Of course that was when it was virtually 100% certain in their minds that the Hillary would win. Now, we see that a year later they still have not accepted the result.

If Trump is removed by any means other than an election, they ain't seen nothin yet.

Fran Macadam , says: October 30, 2017 at 8:46 am
The Republic ends, one way or another, as an oligarchic military dictatorship. Or so our elites would have it, to avoid democratic accountability. The common people never want war and that just won't do.
EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2017 at 10:38 am
When Pres Trump was warned about who he allowed into his inner circle, he ignored said warnings. I am sure that the generals are honorable pole, but they have been on board with the mess that exists, hardly a in that they woud support a agenda that tones down the risky conflict they helped mold and support. I think it was also made clear that these people would not stop. Trying to please them was not going to be effective. The battle was too much in your face – they are not New york brawler. They don't get that once its over, its play nice time. Not given the sheer viciousness of the struggle. They played low ball from the beginning and they had no intention of letting up.

They have to change the rules and the game, hence the Russia gambit, special prosecutors (always the concern because they have no boundaries.) who can go willy nilly wherever they so choose. And they are changing the rules.

They have been talking about a coup prior to the election.
______________

"Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as "the last man standing -- the only one who has not been infected by Trump's metastasizing ethical cancer . . ."

... ... ...

Joe the Plutocrat , says: October 30, 2017 at 11:05 am
@Fran Macadam, please explain the difference between oligarchy/military dictatorship and 'elites'. pun intended, dare I day, the former is/are every real, and the latter (per Fox News/Bannonite definition) are the very essence of "fake".
Brendan Sexton , says: October 30, 2017 at 12:07 pm
I think Kirt is correct when he says, "Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him."
This might prove to be the most regrettable part of this very regrettable presidency. We might just get through it, but it will be with no thanks to the man (reputedly) in charge.
Mark Thomason , says: October 30, 2017 at 12:41 pm
The NYT is liberal, but only on domestic issues.

On major economic issues it has always been neo-liberal, which is not "liberal" at all.

On foreign policy, it has always been neo-con, never considering a war it does not advocate, never considering overseas commitments it does not welcome.

If McCain and Friedman oppose Trump, it is not to seek liberal solutions to domestic problems. They both want neo-con solutions to foreign problems.

When they deal with economics, which is a lesser issue with each, it is for neo-liberal solutions on which they dislike Trump's populism, like the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Trump may be bad, but not for the reasons offered by these two. For what they discuss, they are the bad guys.

b. , says: October 30, 2017 at 1:39 pm
To accept a position in the administrations of Bush, Obama, or now Trump, in itself proved conclusively that the person in question would not have the moral integrity and principled convictions to be "a moderating influence" or otherwise shape policy. Powell under Bush is a revealing example, all the way down to Vials Of Mass Destruction. Mattis and Tillerson, and indeed anybody else who chose work with Trump – including McConnell, Ryan, Schumer, Pelosi – define what rational expectations we could have of them, by their very act of association.

Now if only flatworlding tools like "Suck On This" would fall for the notion of the "upstanding careerist".

Janek , says: October 30, 2017 at 1:52 pm
I stopped taking J. McCain and T. Friedman seriously long ago, but in the current context of American global and Middle eastern politics I read them to know what is going on in their confused heads.

A. J. Bacevich writes about T. Friedman: "The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus." Couldn't agree more and I would add that the "glib prophet of globalization" is not only glib and bogus, he is not even flat he is 1D (one dimentional) as one can be.

[Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

[Oct 29, 2017] Trump Heralds GOP Anger, Unity As WSJ Warns Dems The Russian Dossier Dam Is Breaking

Notable quotes:
"... May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying. ..."
"... The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information." ..."
"... This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role. ..."
"... He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true. ..."
"... Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it. ..."
"... In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo. ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
In a series if tweets this morning , President Trump has exposed some of the narratives that much of the mainstream media seems loathed to touch...

Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more.

And while Democrats and their mouthpieces continues to try and focus attention on the unverified frivolous claims within the dossier - as opposed to the illegalities of the dossier's production, collusion, and exhibition - The Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins warns then that the Trump Dossier dam is breaking ...

A U.S. political party applied to a hostile power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent.

'Tis the season of tossing out nondisclosure agreements. Victims and employees of Harvey Weinstein clamor to be released from their NDAs so they can talk about his abuse. Perkins Coie, the Washington law firm for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign, showed the way by voluntarily releasing Fusion GPS from its duty to remain mum on Democrats who funded the notorious Trump dossier.

May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying.

The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information."

Mr. Reid knows how the responsible press works. Implausible, scurrilous and unsupported allegations are not reportable, but a government official making public reference to such allegations is reportable.

Mr. Reid, though, failed to mention his party's role in concocting the allegations, much less that the manner of its doing so left him no reason to suppose the charges were anything but tall tales spun by Russian intelligence officials in response to danglings of Democratic money.

This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role.

Let's also hear from Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He claimed on TV to have "circumstantial" and "more than circumstantial" evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. In the event, what he delivered in a committee hearing was a litany of routine, innocuous business and diplomatic contacts between Trump associates and Russian citizens, interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier.

He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true.

Mr. Schiff, a Harvard Law graduate, will know the phrase is not our coinage. "Reckless disregard" is the standard by which the Supreme Court says, even in a country that bends over backward to protect the press at the expense of public figures, the press can be held liable for defamatory untruths about a public figure.

Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it.

Finally, let us hear from James Comey.

The Trump dossier was reckless and irresponsible in the extreme, but only consequential after Election Day. It didn't prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president.

In the new spirit of non-non-disclosure, it's time for Mr. Comey to tell us about the Russian intelligence scam that may really have changed the election outcome.

In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo.

This led directly to Mr. Comey's second intervention, reopening the case 11 days before Election Day, a shocking development that appears now to have moved enough votes into Mr. Trump's column to account for his win.

At the time, the press was all too happy to blame Bill Clinton for his wife's loss when Mr. Comey, for nonclassified consumption, cited Mr. Clinton's tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch as the reason for his intervention.

The press is silent now.

The new story satisfies nobody's agenda, and only makes the FBI look foolish. Mr. Trump is not eager to hear his victory portrayed as an FBI-precipitated accident. Democrats cling to their increasingly washed-out theory of Trump-Russia collusion.

And yet, if Mr. Comey's antic intervention in response to Russian disinformation inadvertently led to Mr. Trump becoming president, this was the most consequential outcome by far.

* * *

President Trump has the final word however, asking (and answering a key question) - All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!

All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2017

[Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received." ..."
"... The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election. ..."
"... As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides ..."
"... The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies. ..."
"... Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller. ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | dailycaller.com

The central mystery involving what has become known as Russiagate is the lack of any real understanding of what exactly took place. It is alleged in some circles that Moscow somehow interfered in the 2016 Presidential election and might even have tilted the result in favor of candidate Donald Trump. Others suspect that the tale is politically motivated in an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton and find Donald Trump or his associates guilty of collusion with an unfriendly foreign government.

Caught in between are those who are not completely convinced by either narrative and are demanding evidence to confirm that there was a sequence of events involving Russia and various American individuals that demonstrates both intent and actual steps taken which would lend credibility to such a hypothesis. So far, in spite of a year and a half of highly intrusive investigation, there has been remarkably little evidence of anything apart from the unchallengeable fact that someone took files from John Podesta as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers and the stolen information wound up at WikiLeaks.

One of the most damaging revelations made regarding Donald Trump consisted of the so-called "Dossier," which had been compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Initial reports suggested that Steele's investigation was commissioned initially by a Republican opponent of Trump, possibly Jeb Bush, and later it was possibly continued by someone connected to the Democratic Party. This genesis of the document was widely reported at the time but no "names" were attached to the claims even though the identities of those who had commissioned the work were known to some journalists who had uncovered additional details relating to the investigation.

The drafts of some parts of the document itself began to make the rounds in Washington during the summer of 2016, though the entire text was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was reportedly still being worked on in June by Steele and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by him in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for verification, which he agreed to do.

The Steele Dossier contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to the Vladimir Putin regime as a businessman who sought and obtained significant, and possibly illegal, favors on real estate transactions from the Russian government. On a more personal level, it also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow. Few of the allegations could be verified as the report relied on mostly unnamed, unidentifiable sources. On a more serious note, the dossier concluded with an assessment that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russian intelligence services and could be blackmailed.

At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."

The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election.

As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides for the entire document and resulted in the launching of a top-level law enforcement investigation.

The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies.

The president also comes across as credible vis-à-vis his critics because of what has become evident since the dossier was surfaced. The clearly politically motivated multiple investigations carried out so far in which no rock has been unturned have come up with absolutely nothing, either in the form of criminal charges or in terms of actual collusion with a foreign government. And, one might add, there has been little in the way of evidence to sustain the charge that Russia sought to influence the election and might even have succeeded in doing so. But there is one thing new that we do know now: Russiagate began within the Clinton Campaign headquarters.

Phil Giraldi is a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent 20 years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases.

Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller.

[Oct 28, 2017] Independence and Self-Determination by James Petras

Nationalism was used and will be used by Western powers to weaken opponents as "enhanced" divide and conquer strategy. That's given. an interesting nuance is that several nationalist movement (for example in Ukraine and Baltic countries) de-facto promote enlargement of neoliberal empire led by the USA, which, in reality is the bitter enemy of any national self-determination and will support them only until such support weakened their geopolitical adversaries. The key political players in this empire are not nations but transnational corporations. Such a paradox, that several nationalist movement fail to understand.
An interesting nuance with Crimea and Ukraine was that at the moment of Crimea referendum for independence, Provisional government of Yatsenyuk-Turchinov in Kiev was form international legal norms standpoint an illegitimate junta, as Yanukovich was still alive (despite attempts to kill him) and did not pass the presidential power to Provisional government. The only claim to legitimacy of Provisional government was the fact that it was supported by the USA and EU. Putin refused to play this card, but in general he could announce Ukrainian government in exile and occupy all Eastern and Southern Ukraine under the pretext of restoring legitimate. there were two problems with this solution: Yanukovich was probably hated by most population for corruption (which actually did not exceed the levels achieved under Poroshenko; so it is unclear what Ukraine people gained here) and that might create problems with a few cities with some sizable "nationalists" population (Dnepropetrovsk is one), but that's about it. In such situation Western Ukraine and announce that it is legitimate Ukraine, with Western Ukraine simply cut from the rest.
As new regime now dropped the standard of living of population to African level of poverty, and population started to reject Western Ukrainian nationalism as a path to nowhere, this scenario might still possible in case some major crisis in Kiev. The key issue here is that new separate republic should be independent from both Russia and Western Ukraine. Of couse the USA will try their best to block this scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... 'self-determination' ..."
"... Many of the prime movers of empire-building adopted the tactics of dividing and conquering adversaries – under the liberal pretext of promoting 'self-determination', ..."
"... 'central' ..."
"... 'national unity' ..."
"... 'self-determination' ..."
"... 'uneven and combined development' ..."
"... 'Nationalism', ..."
"... 'nationalism' ..."
"... 'nationalist' ..."
"... 'divide and conquer', ..."
"... 'regime change' ..."
"... In the case of Iraq in the 1990's, Kurds were sponsored, armed, funded and defended by the US and Israel in order to weaken and divide the secular-nationalist Iraqi republic. Kurds, again with US support, have organized regional conflicts in Turkey and more recently in Syria, in order to defeat the independent government of Bashar Assad. Leftist Kurds cynically describe their imperial allies, including the Israelis, as 'progressive colonialists'. ..."
"... In brief, the Kurds act as surrogates for the US and Israel: They provide mercenaries, access to military bases, listening and spy posts and resources in their newly ' liberated ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the US hailed the cause of self-determination when it engineered a violent coup to oust an elected regime, whose crime was its commitment to independence from NATO. The coup was openly funded by the US, which financed and trained fascist thugs committed to the expulsion or repression of ethnic Russian speakers, especially in the eastern Donbas region and Crimea with the aim of placing NATO bases on Russia's border. ..."
"... 'self-determination'. ..."
"... 'self-determination' ..."
"... 'We bombed the wrong side'. ..."
"... The US imperialist state, like all aspiring empire-builders, represses or supports movements for self-determination according to their class and imperial interests. To be clear: Self-determination is a class-defined issue; it is not a general moral-legal principle. ..."
"... Imperialism's selective use and abuse of self-determination is not a case of 'hypocrisy' or 'double standards', as their left-liberal supporters complain. Washington applies a single standard: Does this movement advance Empire by securing and buttressing vassal regimes and their supporters? The language of 'liberation' ..."
"... For decades, Eastern European, Balkan and Baltic countries were encouraged to struggle for 'self-determination' against the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, only to later embrace the yoke of vassalage under the command of NATO, the EU and Washington. In many cases their sovereignty and standard of living collapsed followed by ethnic cleansing, including the mass expulsion of Serbs from Croatia and Kosovo and the cultural-linguistic repression of ethnic Russians in Latvia and Ukraine. ..."
"... Beyond the immediate conflicts, many independent regimes, in turn, become oppressive rulers of their own minorities and native critics. 'Self-determination' ad infinitum can ultimately lead to schizoid individuals – extolling their mythical people while oppressing others. Today, Zionism is the ultimate parody of 'self-determination'. Newly independent countries and rulers frequently deny minorities of their own right to self-determination – especially those who sided with the previous power. ..."
"... As for "kleptocracy", that term would seem to describe both the Russian government and the US government, and its vast wasteful & crooked complex of "connected" military contractors, medical-insurance and pharma corporations, big union leadership, and the revolving door of think tanks and "media" outlets. ..."
Oct 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Since World War II most of the world's conflicts have revolved around struggles for independence against Western and Japanese colonial/imperial regimes

Following formal independence, a new type of imperial domination was imposed – neo-colonial regimes, in which the US and its European allies imposed vassal rulers acting as proxies for economic exploitation. With the rise of US unipolar global domination, following the demise of the USSR (1990), the West established hegemony over the East European states. Some were subject to fragmentation and sub-divided into new NATO dominated statelets.

The quest for a unipolar empire set in motion a series of wars and ethnic conflicts in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic States, North Africa, Asia and Western Europe – leading to ethnic cleansing and the global mass refugee crises.

The break-up of nation states spread across the globe as the rhetoric and politics of 'self-determination' replaced the class struggle as the flagship for social justice and political freedom.

Many of the prime movers of empire-building adopted the tactics of dividing and conquering adversaries – under the liberal pretext of promoting 'self-determination', without clarifying who and what the 'self' represented and who really benefited

Sectional, regional, cultural and ethnic identities served to polarize struggles. In contrast 'central' regimes fought to retain 'national unity' in order to repress regional revolts.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss the national and international forces behind the slogans of 'self-determination' and the larger international and regional consequences.

Basic Concepts: Ambiguities and Clarification

One of the striking aspects of the process of globalization and national development is 'uneven and combined development' (ICD). This takes several forms – uneven development between regions, within and between countries, and usually both.

Imperial countries concentrate industries, commerce and banking while colonized/neo-colonized countries are left with export-linked, resource-based enclaves and low-wage assembly plants. Frequently, the capital cities of colonized and de-colonized countries concentrate and centralize political power, wealth, infrastructure, transport and finance while their provinces are reduced to providing raw material and cheap labor by subject people. Infrequently political power and administration – including the military, police and tax collection agencies – are concentrated in economically un-productive central cities, while the wealth-producing, but politically weaker regions, are economically exploited, marginalized and depleted.

Combined and uneven development on international and national levels has led to class, anti-imperialist and regional struggles. Where class -based struggles have been weakened, nationalist and ethnic leaders and movements assume political leadership.

'Nationalism', however, has two diametrically opposing faces: In one version Western backed regional movements work to degrade anti-imperialist regimes in order to subordinate the entire nation to the dictates of an imperial power. In a different context, broad-based secular nationalists struggle to gain political independence by defeating imperial forces and their local surrogates, who are often ethnic or religious minority rent-collecting overlords.

Imperial states have always had a clear understanding of the nature of the different kinds of 'nationalism' and which serve their interests. Imperial states support regional and/or 'nationalist' regimes and movements that will undermine anti-imperial movements, regimes and regions. They always oppose 'nationalist' movements with strong working class leadership.

Historical Experience

Imperial Perfidious Albion, the United Kingdom, slaughtered and starved millions of people who resisted its rule in Asia (India, Burma, Malaya and China), Africa (South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, etc.) and Europe (Ireland).

At the same time, British imperialists promoted regional conflicts arming Muslims to fight Hindus, Sikhs to fight Muslims, Gurkas to oppress Malays and create various warring religious, ethnic and linguistic groups throughout the Indian subcontinent, Burma and Malaya. Likewise the UK promoted conflicts among religious, secular nationalist and conservative groups throughout the Middle East.

The imperial powers naturally operate through the strategy of 'divide and conquer', labeling their adversaries as 'backward' and 'authoritarian' while praising their surrogates as 'freedom fighters' which they claim are 'in transition to Western democratic values'.

However, the strategic issue is how imperial states define the kind of self-determination to support or repress and when to change their policies: Today's allies are dubbed 'democrats' in the Western press and tomorrow they can be re-assigned the role of 'freedom's enemies' and 'authoritarian', if they act against imperial interests.

The Two Faces of Self-Determination

In contrast to the imperial practice of shifting policies toward dominant regimes and separatist movements, most of the 'left' broadly support all movements for self-determination and label all opponents as 'oppressors'.

As a result the left and the imperialist regimes may end up on the same side in a massive 'regime change' campaign!

The libertarian left cover-up their own fake 'idealism' by labeling the imperial powers as 'hypocrites' and using a 'double-standard'. This is a laughable accusation, since the guiding principle behind an imperial decision to support or reject 'self-determination' is based on class and imperial interests. In other words, when 'self-determination' benefits the empire, it receives full support. There are no abstract historical, moral precepts, devoid of class and imperial content determining policy.

Case Studies: The Myths of the "Stateless Kurds" and "Ukraine's Liberation"

In the Twentieth Century, the Kurdish citizens of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran have made claims of 'self-determination' and fought against established nation-states in the name of 'ethnic liberation'.

But who defines the real 'self' to be liberated?

In the case of Iraq in the 1990's, Kurds were sponsored, armed, funded and defended by the US and Israel in order to weaken and divide the secular-nationalist Iraqi republic. Kurds, again with US support, have organized regional conflicts in Turkey and more recently in Syria, in order to defeat the independent government of Bashar Assad. Leftist Kurds cynically describe their imperial allies, including the Israelis, as 'progressive colonialists'.

In brief, the Kurds act as surrogates for the US and Israel: They provide mercenaries, access to military bases, listening and spy posts and resources in their newly ' liberated (and ethnically cleansed) country ', to bolster US imperialism, which 'their warlord leaders' have chosen as the dominant 'partner'. Is their struggle one of national liberation or mercenary puppetry in the service of empire against sovereign nations resisting imperial and Zionist control?

In the Ukraine, the US hailed the cause of self-determination when it engineered a violent coup to oust an elected regime, whose crime was its commitment to independence from NATO. The coup was openly funded by the US, which financed and trained fascist thugs committed to the expulsion or repression of ethnic Russian speakers, especially in the eastern Donbas region and Crimea with the aim of placing NATO bases on Russia's border.

The overwhelmingly Russian-speaking people of Crimea opposed the coup and exercised their right to self-determination by voting to rejoin Russia. Likewise the industrialized Donbas region of eastern Ukraine declared its autonomy, opposing the oppressive and grossly corrupt US installed regime in Kiev.

The violent US-EU sponsored coup in Kiev was a blatant form of imperial annexation, while the peaceful vote in Crimea and the militant Eastern Ukraine (Donbas) exercise of self-determination presented a progressive response by anti-imperialist forces. Thwarted in its project to turn Eastern Ukraine and Crimea into NATO launching pads for aggression against Moscow, US/EU condemned this response as 'Russian colonization'.

Tibet and the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province

Separatist groups have been actively engaged in armed uprisings for many decades in Tibet and Xinjiang, Western China. While they claimed to be 'independent', their feudal warlords have long been hostile to the positive advances of the Chinese revolution (including the abolition of slavery in Tibet, as well as opium trade and bride price and the extension of universal education in feudal Moslem regions). They collaborated with the US and expansionist India (where the Dalai Lama established his palace and camps of armed supporters, trained and armed by Western imperial agencies).

While the West advertises the Dalai Lama as a peace-loving holy man giving platitudinous speeches to adoring crowds, this saint never condemned the genocidal US wars against fellow Buddhists in Vietnam, Korea or elsewhere.

The well-funded Western pro-Tibet and pro-Uighur celebrity/victim circuit has ignored the links between the Dalai Lama and his imperial patrons, which ultimately defines the operational meaning of 'self-determination'.

Kosova: Self-Determination by Terrorist White Slavers

After World War II, Yugoslavia, liberated from its vicious Nazi collaborators by the Communist partisans, embarked on becoming a peaceful self-managed, multi-ethnic socialist society. But in the 1990's, the overt military intervention of NATO forces deliberately engineered the violent break-up of Yugoslavia into 'independent' statelets. The experiment of a multiethnic socialist state in Europe was destroyed. After massive ethnic cleansing of its non-Albanian populations, a new NATO puppet-state, Kosova, came under the control of an internationally recognized terrorist, white slaver, narco-US vassal Hashim Thaci and his Kosovo Liberation Army thugs.

With the massive US bombing campaign against Belgrade and other Yugoslav cities and with NATO military support, Kosova achieved 'self-determination' – as a huge land-based US aircraft carrier and 'R&R' center (Camp Bondsteel) with discounts at KLA-run brothels for the GI's. Because Kosova serves as a mercenary outpost run by vassal thugs, Washington and Brussels endorsed its claims as a 'liberated independent state'. It has also served as an international discount depot for the gruesome trade in human organs for transplant. Viewing the ethnically cleansed mafia state of Kosovo, then NATO commander, Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, later admitted: 'We bombed the wrong side'.

The break-up of Yugoslavia, led to multiple separatist mini-states, each of which fell in line with EU-economic domination and US military control. In Western jargon this was dubbed 'democratic self-determination' – the ugly reality is that of massive ethnic cleansing, impoverishment and criminality.

Catalunya's Independence and Neo-Franco Spain

Spain is under the rule of a regime descended from the fascist dictator Francisco Franco. President Mariano Rajoy and his misnamed 'Popular Party' (PP) and his royal sidekick, King Felipe VI, have engaged in massive corruption scandals, money laundering and fraudulent multi-million euro public–private building contracts. Rajoy's neo-liberal policies significantly contributed to a financial crash which resulting in a 30% unemployment rate and an austerity program stripping Spanish workers of their collective bargaining power.

In the face of Catalunya's pursuit of self-determination via free and democratic elections, Rajoy ordered a police and military invasion, seizing ballots, breaking heads and asserting total control.

The Catalans' peaceful exercise of self-determination via free elections, independent of imperial manipulation, was rejected by both the EU and Washington as 'unlawful'– for disobeying Rajoy and his neo-Franco legions.

Self-Determination for Palestine and US Backed Israeli Colonization and Subjugation

For a half-century, Washington has supported brutal Israeli occupation and colonization of the Palestinian 'West Bank'. The US consistently denies self-determination for the people of Palestine and its millions of displaced refugees. Washington arms and finances Israeli expansion through the violent seizure of Palestinian territory and resources as well as the starvation, incarceration, torture and assassination of Palestinians for the crime of asserting their right of self-determination.

The overwhelming majority of US Congressional officials and Presidents, past and present, slavishly take their cues from the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish (Israeli) Organization who add billions to the coffers of colonial Tel Aviv. Israel and its Zionist surrogates inside the US government manipulate the US into disastrous wars in the Middle East against the self-determination of independent Arab and Muslim nations.

Saudi Arabia: Enemy of Yemen's Self-Determination

Saudi Arabia's despotic regime has fought against self-determination in the Gulf States and Yemen. The Saudis, backed by US arms and advisers, have dispossessed millions of Yemeni civilians and killed thousands in a merciless bombing campaign. Over the past decade the Saudis have bombed and blockaded Yemen, destroying its infrastructure, causing a massive plague of cholera and threatening starvation for millions of children in an effort to defeat the Houthi-led Yemeni liberation movement.

The US and UK have provided over a hundred billion dollars in arms sales and give logistical support, including bombing coordinates to the Saudi tyrants while blocking any UN-sponsored diplomatic action to relieve the immense suffering. In this grotesque war crime, Washington and Israel are the Saudi Monarchy's closest associates in denying self-determination to the oppressed people of Yemen who have long resisted Saudi control.

Conclusion

The US imperialist state, like all aspiring empire-builders, represses or supports movements for self-determination according to their class and imperial interests. To be clear: Self-determination is a class-defined issue; it is not a general moral-legal principle.

Imperialism's selective use and abuse of self-determination is not a case of 'hypocrisy' or 'double standards', as their left-liberal supporters complain. Washington applies a single standard: Does this movement advance Empire by securing and buttressing vassal regimes and their supporters? The language of 'liberation' is a mere gloss to secure the allegiance of vassals opposed to independent states.

For decades, Eastern European, Balkan and Baltic countries were encouraged to struggle for 'self-determination' against the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, only to later embrace the yoke of vassalage under the command of NATO, the EU and Washington. In many cases their sovereignty and standard of living collapsed followed by ethnic cleansing, including the mass expulsion of Serbs from Croatia and Kosovo and the cultural-linguistic repression of ethnic Russians in Latvia and Ukraine.

The Kurdish 'freedom fighters', followed ethnic warlords who were funded by the US and Israel, and took over town, cities, oil resources and territory to serve as imperial military bases against the sovereign governments of Iraq, Iran and Syria.

In this context, the Kurdish warlords and oligarchs are loyal vassals and an integral component of the long-standing US-Israeli policy aimed at dividing and weakening independent allies of Palestine, Yemen and genuine liberation movements.

Clearly the criteria for deciding whose claims of self-determination are valid require identifying whether class and anti-imperialist interests are advanced.

Beyond the immediate conflicts, many independent regimes, in turn, become oppressive rulers of their own minorities and native critics. 'Self-determination' ad infinitum can ultimately lead to schizoid individuals – extolling their mythical people while oppressing others. Today, Zionism is the ultimate parody of 'self-determination'. Newly independent countries and rulers frequently deny minorities of their own right to self-determination – especially those who sided with the previous power.

To the extent that the 'national' struggle is limited to political independence it can lead to a mere 'changing of the guard' – maintaining oppressive class exploitation and introducing new forms of cultural-ethnic and gender oppression.

In some instances the new forms of class exploitation may even surpass their previous conditions under imperial vassalage. Kurds, Tibetans, fascist Ukrainian nationalists, Uighurs and other so-called freedom fighters turn out to be military Sepoys for aggressive US incursion against independent China, Iran and Russia. Leftist backers of these dubious 'liberation movements' tag along behind the empire.

Capitalist 'globalization' is today's greatest enemy to authentic self-determination. Imperial globalization supports fragmented statelets – all the better to convert them into new vassals with their own flag and anthem!

anon , Disclaimer October 20, 2017 at 6:01 am GMT

I wrote months ago that the U.S, the EU, the Kiev provisional government and Russia should have met and then proposed a solution to Ukraine. They could have suggested a poll of Ukrainian citizens as to whether to split the country into East and West Ukrainian nations along the Dnieper, with built in provisions for free movement of people, finance and goods between the two countries for a specified period in order to ameliorate difficulties of transition. This would have maintained both countries' access to the Black Sea and eliminated the cause of Russia's occupation of Crimea, as well avoiding the subsequent trouble and bloodshed tearing the country apart and the increasing international tension it's causing.

The Kiev government needs increased connection with the West, not the problem of governing half a country's worth of Russophiles in the east. There would be no great threat to the West by having an Eastern Ukraine bordering the Dnieper – the longer the East acceded to the mindset and demands of the kleptocracy that is Russia, especially as greener forms of energy take over, the worse it would look to both itself and others in comparison to West Ukraine, which would be well rid of it, and accelerating its own progress aided by its connections with the West.

But this scenario would require political leadership instead of the standard bumbling and gamesmanship in response to each daily event.

RadicalCenter , October 20, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
It would seem that the average Ukrainian would tend to benefit from increasing trade with both Russia and the Western countries. Why mention only that "[t]he Kiev government needs increased connection with the West" without mentioning the benefit of trade with the Russian Federation?

As for "kleptocracy", that term would seem to describe both the Russian government and the US government, and its vast wasteful & crooked complex of "connected" military contractors, medical-insurance and pharma corporations, big union leadership, and the revolving door of think tanks and "media" outlets.

Grandpa Charlie , October 21, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

"Self-determination is a class-defined issue; it is not a general moral-legal principle." -- Petras

That seems clear enough on its face, but then, in his conclusion, Petras introduces "authenticity" into the mix:

Capitalist 'globalization' is today's greatest enemy to authentic self-determination.

So it appears that we are right back in the moral-legal realm after all, under the heading of "authenticity." Or, perhaps, under the mind-numbing category of "class-defined issues"?

In effect, Petras does indeed apply a moral-legal principle: the principle of "authenticity." Under this pretence, Petras essentially equates Kosovo and Tibet, going so far as to conflate the Dalai Lama with whatever "warlords" perhaps exist anywhere in the western regions claimed by the PRC.

Not only is Petras' BS an instance of guilt by association, the association exists nowhere but in Petras' rhetoric -- certainly not any place on the ground in Asia. Ah, but this is where Petras' arch-villain comes in handy for his argument! Who knows whether there may be CIA operatives skulking around, spreading USD in places like Samarkand, setting up arms deals and the like? (Clearly, the Dalai Lams is involved in that, eh?) Thus Petras would pull off a trick of shifting the burden of proof: since the Dalai Lama never involved himself in Vietnam or Korea, then clearly the burden of proof is on those like myself, who question Petras' grand narrative, to show that the Dalai Lama is anything other than a stooge of the arch-villain USA.

Petras expects us to agree, categorically, that there is nothing authentic about "free Tibet" or about objections that the PRC's occupation of Tibet is an instance of genocide, just as surely as was the campaign of the Japanese Empire to annex vast regions of China in WW2. But the truth is that the world doesn't know that the "free Tibet" meme is in any way inauthentic actually we recognize something authentic about it! Perhaps we can condemn the occupation of Palestine by Israel, but to also condemn the occupation of Tibet by China? No, no, no nothing "authentic" about Tibetans' desire for freedom from Chinese imperialism?

https://www.freetibet.org/about-us

hyperbola , October 21, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@anon

Perhaps Odessa (at least the southern-eastern part) should be joined with Transnistria to accomodate another area with strong Russian population.

[Oct 28, 2017] All the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition.

Notable quotes:
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
ilsm : February 19, 2017 at 04:06 AM
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs..., February 19, 2017 at 07:23 AM
The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide.

[Oct 28, 2017] MSM beat impeachment drum again

Notable quotes:
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | progressive.org

karlof1 | Jul 27, 2017 3:40:40 PM | 117

Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . "

Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.

Yes, Trump's following that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate that condemnation. http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/

I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.

[Oct 27, 2017] How Saddam Hussein Predicted America's Failure in Iraq

Oct 27, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

b. , says: October 25, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Maybe US foreign policy as well as the popular sentiments expressed in the thread are well explained by the fact that the US does not have to worry about any bridges connecting it with the nations it attacks and devastates.

With two shining seas on either side, and no apparent military concern about the borders north and south, maybe all wars to be pursued for profit and "interest" are by definition elective, hence aggression, hence unconstitutional and illegal.

Kent , says: October 25, 2017 at 12:59 pm
How did the US "succeed" in Iraq? What did it gain? What is the measure of success in Afghanistan?
PJ London , says: October 26, 2017 at 11:39 am
Hamdani was a soldier and Hussein although a competent soldier was first and foremost a politician.(Qusay was a spoilt child).
Soldiers can win battles and even 'wars' but do not have the end-game in mind.

The only thing that USA could gain was some oil, some gold and a few more years of Bretton-Woods hegemony. Hussein attacked USA where it hurt. Refusing to go along with the Dollar exchange and insisting on Euro. Gaddafi did the same with a Gold based Dinar, and see where it got him. Iran has the same idea with the Tehran oil exchange, which is why they were/are so hated.

China and Russia and Hussein knew that it is only the first step to win a battle. If you take ground, you must then occupy that ground. Russia moved millions of Russians to all the occupied territories, and therefore could rightly claim that Crimea (and Kiev) were Russian territory inhabited by Russian speaking people. China in Tibet, Israel in Jerusalem. To win the battle is only a minor step, you need to occupy the land with your people to keep it.

There was/is no way that Americans are going to resettle in Afghanistan or Iraq and therefore they can never win the war. USA has 'occupied' Europe for as long as their troops have the 'Russians are coming' was believed and that the US army could enforce the Bretton-woods diktat. Both are now discredited and the USA will lose everywhere. It is trying to gain Africa, but there are already a million Chinese who have settled and USA has no chance. Of course the fact that the Chinese and Russians have gone to Africa with money and trade whilst the US has only drones and guns to offer will not make them popular either.

USA is dying and the final death throes are painful to watch, but it comes to all eventually. You had a good run but now is the time to say goodbye.

The British recognised it after the Second World War and handed over the colonies to the natives. Which then ran them into the ground with Australia, Canada and India being prime examples of why people need a strong hand to control them, but USA cannot or will not let go.

Unfortunately it is sad rather than amusing to watch the demise.

Wilfred , says: October 26, 2017 at 7:58 pm
Considering how events unfolded, both for Iraq and for Saddam personally, it's hard to take seriously the notion that he was a far-sighted seer.
M Murqus , says: October 26, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Despite all that is said, the USA has not "failed" in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan and the destabilization of Libya and Syria, are all steps in the plan to control natural resources and dismember any threat to the zionist entity of israel whose lackeys actually control the U.S.

In addition, every country that was attacked was placed directly under the control of the bankers who finance the zionists. Every threat to the hegenomy of these bankers has been snuffed out and everywhere gold reserves were stolen, and oil, gas and mineral deposits are now under their control.

Whether you believe it ot like it or not, this is what is happening.

[Oct 25, 2017] Why the FBI wiretap on former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is a big deal by Randall D. Eliason

Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | washingtonpost.com

Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

CNN reported Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.

This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.

When news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness. Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury was not unexpected .

A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority. Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.

That's also why the search warrant executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.

But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed and was not at his direction.

Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.

We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.

The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.

Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.

But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with us for some time.

Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.

[Oct 24, 2017] Old color revolutions plan, some new stooges

Notable quotes:
"... Encourage internal dissent and gradual disassembling of the country into independent states, always touted as the very model of democracy and choice. ..."
"... The script is [from] 1917. Navalny is supposed to be the passionate revolutionary fighting the corrupt old system and represents the voice of the people. In reality, it is the exact opposite: Navalny is a boring nobody who represents the interests of the USA and is a colour revolution puppet. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , October 21, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Typical Daily Telegraph shite on Russia, which rag is, on occasion, referred to by a well known troll as a reliable source of information (his other sources being the ever truthful and objective BBC, RFE/RL, RBK, Moscow Times, Meduza etc.) about Russia, which shows how little the writers for the Tory Rag really know about the Evil Empire:

Putin's chic challenger Ksenia Sobchak insists she's a real candidate and not a Kremlin stooge

marknesop , October 22, 2017 at 10:09 am
Why is Navalny so frequently described as the 'fiery opposition figure'? What is 'fiery' about him? He is far from a dynamic speaker, and 'critic' just about covers his act – I have yet to see anything like a 'Navalny Plan' to get Russia to its next progressive iteration, only vague nods to more freedom and democracy. Who gives a fuck about freedom and democracy if you don't have a job that will allow you a decent standard of living? Where's the Navalny economic plan?

Let me save you the trouble; in the extremely unlikely event that Navalny came to power, he would be given a script by his western backers. That's why he doesn't need a plan. It would be just like the shock therapy plan of the 90's, just like the remove-subsidies-privatize-everything plan for Ukraine. Create a Russian one percent of fabulously wealthy, and throw crumbs to the rest to shut them up.

Encourage internal dissent and gradual disassembling of the country into independent states, always touted as the very model of democracy and choice.

kirill , October 23, 2017 at 4:47 pm
The script is [from] 1917. Navalny is supposed to be the passionate revolutionary fighting the corrupt old system and represents the voice of the people. In reality, it is the exact opposite: Navalny is a boring nobody who represents the interests of the USA and is a colour revolution puppet.

[Oct 24, 2017] Republican-led House committees to investigate Clintons emails again by Associated Press

Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from John Sipher a is a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt to defend Steele dossier in his Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.

The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.

The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.

Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes.

[Oct 23, 2017] If granny had become POTUS there might have been a lot more radiation around the world because of her "charm".

Oct 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , October 21, 2017 at 4:19 am

The re-modelling of Killary? Why does nobody mention that Hillary Clinton is perfectly nice? Hillary Clinton on The Graham Norton Show: no Paxman-style grilling, but the Democrat radiated grandmotherly charm

Who the fuck is this Norton bloke, anyway?

Moscow Exile , October 21, 2017 at 4:21 am
If granny had become POTUS there might have been a lot more radiation around the world because of her "charm".

[Oct 21, 2017] Washington Funds Foreign Think Tanks That Blacklist Opponents of Neocon Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

I just finished an interview on RT.

Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.

In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech " think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian government-funded RT television network.

Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank? Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.

I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"

It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials, when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.

So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights."

Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political "enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech "European Values" think tank.

Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?

"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.

This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."

That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny?

The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.

[Oct 21, 2017] Socialism, Land and Banking 2017 compared to 1917 by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
"... Journal of Economic Issues ..."
Oct 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.

Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism.

Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.

Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.

Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by extending voting rights to the working population at large.

Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as for capitalist economies.

Landlords, banks and the cost of living

The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by land rent – the rising market price for land.

In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.

The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics. But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.

In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of passage.

The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.

The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income, not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond prices.

Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices, the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.

Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt, by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with their own currency and tax systems).

The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government regulation or planning.

In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist reforms.

To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs (" faux frais of production").

Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations

Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.

In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a "fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely. [1]

The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism. Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.

But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment. Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending, natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19 th century.

Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices for their land are soaring.

These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere, regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.

The beginning and end of Russian socialism

Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.

By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and leisure activity, and modest housing.

Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains, much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.

Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond spreading literacy, education and public health.

Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist countries. [2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent, monopoly rent and financial charges.

Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.

The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.

The collapse of Russian Stalinism

Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.

When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers.

Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets), labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.

Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America, followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a whole.

Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent – natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace" was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making money in the quickest way possible.

Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.

It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation."

The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96.

The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks, beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate, sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank, along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies. Skilled labor emigrated.

The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.

Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money" required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was spent on imports.

Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States!

When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing debt.

The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons. They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.

This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an economy. [4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange rate.

Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden. [5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.

The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought to save the industrial economies.

A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic, ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities. Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors and debtors.

Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation

By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.

The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.

The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and natural resource extraction.

These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested interests.

All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization, financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling on consumers, not on finance or real estate.

China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world

Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western" diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism into socialism.

China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production facilities in China.

This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to which land and natural resources should be taxed.

The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow – at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.

At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating asset prices in the process.

Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government "interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other monopolies.

Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.

The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital, above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a financial crash.

The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier oligarchy.

Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.

Conclusion

Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008. Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist economies.

Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China shapes its socialist future.

Notes.

[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.

[2] My book Super-Imperialism (1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.

[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations), 2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М. ХАДСОН, Неолиберальная налоговая и финансовая политика приводит к обнищанию России, 49-64.

[4] I give details in "How Neoliberals Bankrupted 'New Europe': Latvia in the Global Credit Crisis," (with Jeffrey Sommers), in Martijn Konings, ed., The Great Credit Crash (Verso: London and New York, 2010), pp. 244-63, and "Stockholm Syndrome in the Baltics: Latvia's neoliberal war against labor and industry," in Jeffrey Sommers and Charles Woolfson , eds., The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model (Routledge 2014), pp. 44-63.

[5] For more analysis see Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson, " Finance is Not the Economy: Reviving the Conceptual Distinction ," Journal of Economic Issues , 50 (2016: #3), pp. 745-768.

[Oct 21, 2017] Re-Visiting Russian Counter-Propaganda Methods by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... "You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie. ..."
"... The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth. ..."
"... I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict. ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , October 20, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT

"You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie.

The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth.

Thus the purpose of propaganda in the US is to make their population more manageable. I think that there is also a cultural difference between US and Russia in how they see the purpose of propaganda.

The Americans see propaganda as useful tool, which when applied skillfully on the domestic population removes the need to oppress them – which they would have to do to their population if they tell them the truth and don't like the reaction of the population after they've been told the truth.

This is called "democracy" – avoid telling them the truth and remove the need to oppress them, which you will have to do if you tell your people a truth that they can't "handle".

The Russians have different approach – which is deeply rooted in their history and culture. The Russian government is less uncomfortable with their population knowing the truth, because if the Russian people don't like the truth, and react to that, the Russian government is more inclined to resort to some kind of oppression on their population – if they think it's in the interest of the Russian state.

Me personally – I like the Russian approach better, I hate lies even if they are told in the name of "democracy". It's better to tell the truth and face the music than be deceitful.

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT
Good piece.

Clearly important truths, for anyone wanting to understand both the recent past and the present that developed out of it:

As for the Soviet propaganda in the West, it did have a measurable effect (just look at the influence of various Communist Parties in Europe during the Cold War), but never enough to beat the base appeal to hedonism and consumerism promoted by the best and most effective branch of the western propaganda apparatus: Hollywood.

and:

Third, outrageous, over the top and disgusting as some of the clown shown on Russian TV are, they do not misrepresent the reality of the AngloZionist Empire. Yes, sure, true Russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US), but practically the regimes in power in the West controlled by Russophobes or by their puppets. As for the western Ziomedia, it is wall-to-wall russophobic to such a degree that I would call it unambiguously racist.

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT

For one thing, the European elites are very very slowly, by tiny steps, waking up to the reality that their abject and total subservience to the US has put them in an extremely uncomfortable situation.

This is one reason why, as I have noted before, the current drive by many of the usual suspects and the rest of the war lobbies in the US to overturn the Iran deal is not necessarily something to be feared. Indeed for those recognising the problems of US interventionism as among the most urgent facing the world, it's probably a win-win situation. Fail, and the US/Israeli/Saudi warmongers have suffered a defeat. Succeed, and they have probably set themselves up for an even more costly defeat.

The Iran deal is widely popular in Europe, even amongst business and other elites, as having halted the necessity for complying with and paying lip-service to the transparently irrational and/or dishonest US nonsense about Iran, and the economically costly and intellectually insupportable sanctions used by the US to wage economic war on that country in the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If the deal is breached by the US regime, the said regime will massively lose credibility worldwide. There will then be a struggle wherein the US tries to coerce its European and British client states to return to waging economic war against Iran. That risks an open refusal, which will seriously damage US control and quite possibly bring it to an end. Russia and China have already started to develop economic and financial structures beyond the reach of Washington. The door will be open for European businesses and governments to walk through it, to the new world beyond.

If it doesn't itself trigger such final breaks, the process of imposing Washington's will will create huge resentment and set the scene for such breaks in the near future.

The Alarmist , October 20, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
The average US American's experience with Russians in the past forty years has come from Rambo films and Red Dawn (the first one). Long gone are the days when films like The Russians are Coming exposed Americans to Russians as human beings rather than as killing machines of an evil state. When Putin or Lavrov appear on American TV, which is not very often, it is only in very tightly scripted sound bites that fit the narrative blathering from the talking head telling the viewer what to think about the Russians and their "misdeeds." Perhaps the only friend the Russians have in American media these days is Rush Limbaugh mull that over.

You can get RT on a few cable providers in the US. In my hometown, you have to pay for the "Russian Package" to get it, though I found RT America once on basic cable in Dallas. I doubt many Americans even know RT exists, much less seek it out. I get the European version via U.K. FTA satellite, and wonder how long it will be before it is knocked off the air by Ofcom.

If I want the truth about the US and U.K., I generally can count on getting it, albeit a bit spun, from RT. If I want the truth about Russia, I generally have to ask one of my Russian friends, though RT, to its credit, does occasionally take a pole at the best. If I want to hear what Putin and Lavrov are actually saying, I rarely get that in any Western Media, but RT will let them go on without significant editorial.

What I find amusing is that during the Cold War, American media elites were falling all over one another to kiss Soviet A ** , but even though many of these same elites accuse Putin of being a closeted commie, they portray him as evil personified; I guess he isn't Communist enough for them.

German_reader , October 20, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT
@Randal

Yes, sure, true russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US )

I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our election" hysteria in the US?
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the whole.

The Alarmist , October 20, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Gotta love auto-correct "pole at the best" should be "poke at the bear."

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT
@German_reader

I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our election" hysteria in the US?

I think Saker is probably not including the general mass of ignorant propaganda victims as "true Russophobes".

US popular opinion on Russia seems pretty mixed, albeit there are certainly plenty of gormless victims of the wall to wall Russophobic propaganda (that's – in its recent guise – mostly partisan anti-Trump in motivation, in truth) in the US. Here's a recent poll (July);

But on the broader issue of relations with Russia, Americans don't appear to be in a bellicose mood. Asked whether it's better for the U.S. to build relationships with Russia or treat Russia as a threat, 59 percent said they want to build relationships, compared to 31 percent who want to treat Russia as a threat.

Registered Democrats were more interested in treating Russia as a threat than Republicans, but 46 percent of them preferred building relationships, 2 percent more than those who favored taking a more aggressive stance. Republicans were far more interested in building relationships, with 67 percent in support.

The poll also asked Americans whether Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia was good or bad for the U.S. While a five percent plurality favored the goal, there was again a sharp partisan divide. 70 percent of Democrats said Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia was bad for the U.S., and 75 percent of Republicans consider it good.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/americans-mixed-feelings-trump-russia-new-poll-shows

More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the whole.

Yes, I agree with this, for sure.

It's true that ordinary Americans are deluged in interventionist and militarist propaganda from the cradle to the grave, and that is perhaps some explanation if not excuse, but the fact does remain that Americans re-elected Clinton, Bush II and Obama (though admittedly they were hardly provided with decent alternatives, but that again shows how they are prepared to vote for warmongers in primaries), and elect and re-elect warmongering interventionist scum like John McCain to Congress time after time after time.

There is clearly a problem in American culture and their political structure that makes them particularly open to manipulation in this area (which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you).

Arioch , October 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
> There is no Russian equivalent of the Pokemon story

Half true.

When Pokemon Go was announced, it was widely speculated that this technology may be used to both hoard unexpecting game addicts into some places (like, moving nazi and antifa crowds together, where their firght would be imminent; or nazi and aggressive ethnic minority; or competing sport teams fans, etc) or background surveillance and spying (by placing pokemons in the places, game operator wants to see in photo).

This was quite a hot topic, and i think those potential dangers are real. Just looking how pseudo-private companies like Facebook engage in swept political censorship makes one ask "how Pokemon company is different?".

There indeed was no allegation that US Gov't actually utilizes this already, but there definitely was a lot of debate about laying frameworks and public habits to start doing it.

Not only Russia but many other states and companies limited Pokemon Go at their premises.

Now, what we see is CNN merely combining the real fears about Po-Go embedded capabilities (which, i repeat, were shared by many Russians) with the typical "Putin is under your bed because all the patriots say so" fundamentalists claim.

Arioch , October 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Cyrano

You have also account for Russia being here an underdog. Russia's information outlets are much weaker than USA's and globalists' ones. Russia has only RT and Sputnik against CNN/Fox/WaPo/MSNBC/PB/BBC/DW/AFP and what not

Russia just can not engage in symmetric warfare and win by overwhelming force, Russia only has overwhelming weakness here.

So, Russia has to take truth into allies, not because it likes it that much more, but because it does not have a chance to fight symmetrically, lies with lies and fires with fires.

German_reader , October 20, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT
@Randal

which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you

I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict.

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 20, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT
This is a good, accurate article.

Another great example of this is the entire Inosmi phenomenon, which translates Western MSM texts into Russian. As one my acquaintances pointed out, it was a "machine that turned naive, simple-minded, West-loving normies into hardcore ultranationalists."

Sergey Krieger , October 20, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT
Truth is the best weapon. By trying to close Soviet union to western news Soviet leadership made things worse. Soviet people than refused to believe even truth about the West believing everything transmitted by those voices. And that despite USSR being in most areas in far better shape than modern Russia. Current Russian propaganda and international policy is head and shoulders above what was passing for those back then managing to achieve excellent results for little expense. Way to go.
Issac , October 21, 2017 at 1:17 am GMT
Much of Europe is presently jailing its citizenry over reactionary tweets and facebook posts. I wouldn't think it accurate to describe them as unwilling to use oppression. In point of fact, I think they're far more willing to directly undermine political reactionaries than the Americans. The American Establishment seems content to stick with propaganda, bureaucratic scheming, and judicial subterfuge.
NoseytheDuke , October 21, 2017 at 2:47 am GMT
@Arioch

I have access to almost all of the sources that you mentioned and a few more. All have their faults but some are so bad that I cannot watch them. RT is definitely one of the best.

Only today I watched RT showing Hillary Clinton being interviewed with RT simultaneously showing screenshots from other media exposing and refuting Clinton's blatant lies. The same technique is used with others such as government (US and EU) spokespersons and officials. It is very effective, in my opinion.

Mathias , October 21, 2017 at 4:07 am GMT
Average Finnish experience about Russia is sadly still from era of Leonid Breznev, cheap vodka and real socialist bar girls of late 1970′s and 1980′s. However hundreds of thousands of people who have visited in Sankt Petersburg and Vyborg during the last 10 years have noticed huge gap between western propaganda and real progress and development in real life Russia.
anonymous , Disclaimer October 21, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT
@German_reader

the average American is totally blameless.

It's something of a top-down situation. After all, America is where the art of PR was refined and is a large industry, pushing everything from consumer goodies to whatever cultural/political ideas are being sponsored at the moment. American is a big island and most in it grow up in something of a bubble. They are tone-deaf in understanding other countries. Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving their opinions on anything foreign. Another thing to keep in mind is that half of the population is mentally average or below average and so what they think about anything beyond their range of experience is pretty much worthless. Of the various commenters giving their opinion on different websites about the Iran nuclear deal how many have actually read it? Mostly they know zero about it. That's pretty much it, Americans know very little so when dealing with them one has to act as one does with a simple-minded neighbor and humor them: yes, you're the fairest one of them all!

Issac , October 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT
"Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving their opinions on anything foreign."

In fairness to the American proles, their country is equivalent in approximate size the European continent. Few proles know anything of politics outside their continental bubble on either side of the Atlantic. Jingoism on either continent is equivalent and opposite from my experience as a third party to both. Americans prefer their jingoism to be patriotic and feign ignorance about Europe as unimportant. Europeans prefer their jingoism to be passive-aggressive and feign understanding about American politics that they do not have. Israelis tend to split the difference by taking a great deal of interest in both and claiming their largely uninformed opinions are unimportant.

Anon , Disclaimer October 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT
To conclude, from the analysis of 1 program, that Russia's whole political communication strategy is super professional and way more sophisticated than "the West's" seems a clear overstretch. The conclusion may be true, but it does not follow from the evidence presented.

In fact, the program's general recipe (use of opponent's egregious examples, a bit of humor, giving air time to 'extreme' spokespersons and basic knowledge of audience nature) is what Sailer does.

Putin does have going for him, however, the fact that he is governing with Russia's best interests at heart. Or can credibly hold that position. For propaganda purposes, half the battle (legitimacy and support of the governed) is won right there.

Another good chunk can be won by claiming the defensive: " we are attacked by anti-Russian forces". The use of a common threat (real or perceived) to rally the people is well known in politics, whether campaigning or governing. What does not strike me as Putinesque is to underestimate the adversary, as the author does.

Philip Owen , October 21, 2017 at 8:53 pm GMT
Russia Today was a worthy channel that put the Russian point of view and posted positive stories about Russia. Decades of positive stories are what Russia needs. But it is boring work to do.

RT has become a ridiculous parody that barely comments on Russia (perhaps another channel is needed). It is designed to attract conspiracy theorists and obsessives. It uses editing tricks at two levels. Some obvious heady handed edit to distract analytical attention from a deeper level. That's very good production to be sure.

RT is anti US. THERE IS NO STATION OUT THERE PUTTING A POSITIVE VIEW OF RUSSIA. THIS IS A HUGE LONG TERM ERROR.

[Oct 20, 2017] Blaming Russia for the Internet 'Sewer' by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Oct 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd, almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.

With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."

I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet.

Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.

After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely to get a piece of the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from many other sources.

If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your "research" cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion monthly users.)

Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a sewer."

But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27 billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.

Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."

Puppies and Pokemon

And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these "Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister motive behind the "puppies" page.

Similarly, CNN went wild over its own "discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would name the Pokémon after the victims.

"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:

"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or, indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the prizes."

So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people" about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald Trump.

A New York Times article on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.

It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.

"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week, they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes, fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."

There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.

The Truth About Fake News

Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not.

The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection.

The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.

But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.

This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true.

But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.

There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor changes in the Republican platform).

Saying 'False' Is 'True'

And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic.

Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence .

In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink.

So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016 and later in 2017 when she repeated it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated Press ran corrections.

In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence – testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the 17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false statement from being described for what it was: false.

Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed "false."

So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes "true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm

I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.

TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am

Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author, conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral degeneracy. Wadya think?

Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!

Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm

I second the motion!

Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm

"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?"

richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am

And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.

Paul Fretheim , October 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm

This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm

The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about 0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.

The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.

The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.

JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm

Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.

As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not. Historians will judge them harshly.

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am

JWalters –

Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form of madness.

anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm

"Historians will judge them harshly."

The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.

Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society they belong to.

Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm

Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, [email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller) and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.

Dan Kuhn , October 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.

Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm

You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up. How could you have missed it?

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm

He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces" against Clinton, versus her accusations.

Elizabeth Burton , October 18, 2017 at 6:21 pm

I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay alert.

A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in the category of "Better safe."

So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm

Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy, and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.

Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat." Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.

Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm

American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary, consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.

Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.

From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:

Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am

Abe –

Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely because of the draft.

Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K. public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in Jail for his activities to oppose the war.

Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am

Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome" situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire (enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am

Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.

BobH , October 19, 2017 at 9:47 am

(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!

T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am

the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm

Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany our censored news. Joe

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm

Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press. Read this .

"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."

Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..

https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/18/globalist-counterpunch-going-for-the-media-knockout/

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:20 pm

Here is a great example of American politicians colluding with the Russians.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-18/fbi-informant-says-he-was-threatened-after-offering-details-linking-clinton-foundati

When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves our attention, and what we do all should do about it.

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Joe Tedesky –

Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.

And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia, U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.

And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption is the norm.

Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the high interest loans.

This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm

Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade right here at home.

I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy, nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being corrupt.

I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?

Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have many a good conversation. Joe

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am

Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few of them too.

Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now, probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm

While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.

http://theduran.com/rt-provider-off-air-palestine-israeli-regime-takes-palestinian-broadcasters/

Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going for the Media Knockout'.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am

Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave Germany and come to Palestine?"

I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am

Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."

I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.

I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist. It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.

Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay. Joe

Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am

Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am

Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm

Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.

http://thesaker.is/trump-goes-full-shabbos-goy/

Tannenhouser , October 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm

Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm

I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation. Joe

dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm

Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

h**p://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron/

Why Obama's top scientist just called keeping fossil fuels in the ground 'unrealistic'

h**ps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/12/why-obamas-top-scientist-just-called-keeping-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground-unrealistic/

Protesting the Dakota pipeline is not cut and dried

h**ps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protesting-the-dakota-pipeline-is-not-cut-and-dried/2016/11/06/2872e228-a207-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html

Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(

Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am

I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect us from the terrists they created.

Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am

Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.

David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm

I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration".

The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.

But I'll let it slide.

Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.

D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)

anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm

So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du jour.

D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm

Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices. Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.

anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm

zio-alert

Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm

The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:

When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H. Fabian" pops up to insist:

"Please disperse! There's nothing for you to see here. Keep moving!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

WC , October 19, 2017 at 12:05 am

And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.

If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is bigger than the one you would like to paint.

Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am

WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe". Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone? Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so why do we? I will wait for your reply.

WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am

Curious.

I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)

As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of? We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the big picture?

No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)

Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am

WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several, world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire. Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire, threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.

anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am

No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in other problems.

WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.

anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am

Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.

Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am

The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.

Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.

The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag "anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.

Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities

The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush administration for its backing of Israel.

A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens."

With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration." Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration, 27 House members and 13 senators.

The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire, engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.

The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).

Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of Return if the applicant so desires.

A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship unless they explicitly request not to.

In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.

Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really works".

"WC" slithered into the CN comments srael's land grab "solution" was under scrutiny here:
Israel's Stall-Forever 'Peace' Plan (September 23, 2017)
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/23/israels-stall-forever-peace-plan/

"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of time."

The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big thing".

"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.

Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.

Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and "always for the benefit of Israel".

Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am

Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very clearly.

I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on the World events.

Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special chosen people?

WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of proportion.

When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!

With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I, on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims (whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong either.

Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who (he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled with so much wrong.

Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over – what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)

Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm

Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper perspective" on Israel.

For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30, 2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal 50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967 War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"

A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.

Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.

Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".

The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the Israel–Lebanon border.

United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring countries.

According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.

Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is overblown.

The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.

This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.

The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank.

Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area" of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."

In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.

Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.

The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.

Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see: HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).

The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war. Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.

Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.

Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy."

Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

Real world solutions:

An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.

What can be done now?

United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.

The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple ethnic cleansing operations.

In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.

Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".

Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am

Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , October 19, 2017 at 4:31 am

This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the Senate. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2

The Act is squarely aimed at our First Amendment right to boycott and to advocate for boycotts. See https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/first-amendment-protects-right-boycott-israel?redirect=blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-protects-right-boycott-israel

dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:33 pm

wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm though.Boy.

Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm

Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers, so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by 140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel they are insulated from critical analysis.

dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm

jon stewart?WTF?

Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm

Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV, having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.

fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm

EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc (DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy, studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is or was a difference between the candidates..

Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm

Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists, white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges, vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the list.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe

Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am

I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.

I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.

Only my mind is left. For some more years.

(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."

Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?

Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am

Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the garbage they are promoting.

Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.

We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great number 21 Roberto Clemente.

Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe

Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm

I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1 favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.

On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and such on the old TV.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm

Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side, where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third. The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our school lunch money.

About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe

mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm

All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein affair.

The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of the population believes what it sees in the MSM.

Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am

mark-

I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Stephen J. , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm

We have sewer rats in our depraved "democracy."
More info at link below:
October 18, 2017
Is This The "Democracy" of the Depraved?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/10/is-this-democracy-of-depraved.html

falcemartello , October 18, 2017 at 7:54 pm

Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20 percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to that.

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical instrument "viola."

Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?

Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm

Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American. Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a problem, Houston.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm

If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would risk starting WWIII doing it.

Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm

A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.

Jessica K , October 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm

No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and concerned about immorality than Americans.

This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by yourself!

Stephen J. , October 18, 2017 at 10:04 pm

Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37
https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/

Sam , October 19, 2017 at 12:10 am

It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense. The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon

Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am

Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!

Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am

Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of Politifact is invigorating.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am

Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNTdlyx7EMQ

Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:21 am

Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.

Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am

Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!

flip diving , October 19, 2017 at 12:54 am

Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more quality items.

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am

Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that. However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police – I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue the investigation.

Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during 1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am

Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more, than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.

The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.

Okay Dave. Joe

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am

Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely do.

It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues, had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country or the World.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here. Joe

BobH , October 19, 2017 at 10:08 am

Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am

I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file. Joe

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am

Hours ago:

"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa has learned.

In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]

FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One, which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10/18/judiciary-committee-calls-on-former-fbi-informant-to-testify-about-uranium-one

This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?

Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am

Very well written article

Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am

The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't be bothered reading it anymore.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am

Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.

He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey, Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter, while virtually ignoring the former.

https://www.sgtreport.com/articles/2017/10/18/shocking-fbi-corruption-exposed-true-news

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 3:39 am

backwardsevolution –

Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles Times.

However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.

I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am

Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to take our minds off of it.

The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.

Cheers, Dave.

Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am

"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like 9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.

In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.'

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am

Lee Francis –

yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.

Jessica K , October 19, 2017 at 7:14 am

It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox, are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked, but with corruption rampant, who knows?

JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)

mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Good one!

Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video editor :)

mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm

The Rulers fear the internet.

Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm

#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/10/19/metoo-a-course-in-deductive-reasoning-separating-fact-from-fiction-through-the-child-exploitation-of-8-year-old-bana-alabed/

rosemerry , October 19, 2017 at 4:17 pm

I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.

Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm

I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it, like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May (assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"

And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny. The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand otherwise, vociferously and en masse.

Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm

Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.

Jerry Alatalo , October 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm

Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.

Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.

Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm

For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the 'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys' article.

GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm

If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.

Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am

I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.

Riikka Söyring , October 20, 2017 at 6:00 pm

Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?

But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.

Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.

[Oct 17, 2017] The Lobby British Style by Philip M. Giraldi

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
Oct 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists. It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran.

To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.

There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends. The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel is a liability to the United States and always has been.

And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.

That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate.

A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates, to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.

Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe. The four-part documentary released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions.

The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.

The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom. When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal" to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.

On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias" prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,

Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented "With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate."

Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel, he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so. The charges against the two men were, unfortunately, eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information."

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Rurik , October 17, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
googlecensors , October 17, 2017 at 5:00 am GMT
One is unable to open the documentary – all 4 parts – on YouTube suggesting that google/YouTube are censoring it and have caved into the Jewish Lobby
Malla , October 17, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?

Frankie P , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT
@Rurik

He has been set free by the truth, proving the old maxim.

wayfarer , October 17, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT
Understand a Spoiled Child, and You Will Understand Israel. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_child

Discipline the Spoiled Child, and Boycott Israel. source: https://bdsmovement.net/

Israel Anti-Boycott Act – An Attack on Free Speech?

Dan Hayes , October 17, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT
Philip,

My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.

Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence of its patron, Ron!

Uebersetzer , October 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed so far.
JackOH , October 17, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).

That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.

I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah.

Cloak And Dagger , October 17, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability to arrest its fall.

Mark James , October 17, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy

I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).

Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.

Kevin , October 17, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!

Tyrion , October 17, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open.

London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the Muslim world, only more so.

The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier. Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.

All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.

Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so that they can further their specious arguments.

Randal , October 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT

"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did"

Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government, did.

The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.

But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are an anti-Semite and a hater.

The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.

geokat62 , October 17, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
@Rurik

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure.

Rare, indeed, Rurik.

And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.

Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran :

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/october/16/president-trump-beats-war-drums-for-iran/

animalogic , October 17, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
The Alarmist , October 17, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is only there to harass little people like you and me.
Bardon Kaldian , October 17, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT
@googlecensors

Not true.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:15 am GMT
@Malla

Abby Martin is amazingly sharp. Many of the things she says can be confirmed by Uri Avnery, both his books and articles.

Here's a link to his weekly columns.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

Incredible stuff there; thanks for posting it.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT
@Malla

Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

According to the first vid, those drones will be built by the goyim.

Maybe there's a message there for us.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles

We are long past that point.

I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core from its inception.

For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist" are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.

Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.

The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.

*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans will finally wake up.
jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

I have news for that twister of words.

In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.

In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than the rest of us.

It's called accountability.

BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft of nuclear triggers from the US?

"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s."

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel.html

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT
Thank you Mr Giraldi. You covered an amazing number of issues in such a well written and compact article.

Thanks also to Mr Unz for publishing these sorts of things.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

What she really meant by that was HOLOCAUST ALERT HOLOCAUST ALERT!!

Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Malla

When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.

iffen , October 17, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NPR Morning Edition 10/17/17

Rachel Martin talks to Vahil Ali, the communications director for the Kurdish president.

In which she tries to steer him into calling for armed American intervention in Kurdistan to resist the Iranian sponsored militia.

LondonBob , October 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference. We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
Sherman , October 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.

Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.

Thanks for update Phil!

ChuckOrloski , October 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
@geokat62

Hey geokat62,

Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.

http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/congress/defaultZAC .

Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"

(Sigh)

History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.

At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on the table" & ready for a war with Iran.

Jake , October 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.

WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British Isles natives were not WASPs.

WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs. You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'

By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish. It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.

The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.

Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group of Semites.

And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.

The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man.

It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.

Michael Kenny , October 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.

Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.

Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection, could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"

Fran Macadam , Website October 17, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .)
Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
@wayfarer

Daphne Caruana Galizia exposed both local thieves and the CIA-Azerbaijan cooperation in supplying ISIS with arms:

https://www.rt.com/news/406963-assange-reward-caruana-galizia-death/ https://www.newsbud.com/2017/10/16/breaking-gladio-b-assassinates-journalist-with-car-bomb/

"Azerbaijan considers Malta to be "one of its provinces": https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/azerbaijan-considers-malta-one-provinces/
The Middle Eastern wars have repercussion .

[Oct 17, 2017] Trump Decertifies Iran Deal, Vows New Sanctions by Jason Ditz

The immediate costs of decertification for the USl include the loss of the trust of allies, increased tensions with Iran, and much greater skepticism from all other governments. It also create additional difficulties the next time America wants to negotiate a major international agreement as some countries will view the USA as a rogue nation which is unable to keep its word. If decertification leads to the U.S. breaching its obligations under the nuclear deal, as seems likely, that the costs will increase even more, and so will the chances of war with Iran.
It might well be that Trump made a step increasing the probability of his removal from the current position by cabinet members.
Looks like Trump focus on appeasing a bunch of foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.
Pretty damn grim.
Oct 13, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979 hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations," and announcing new sanctions.

The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11 attackers.

The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were "factual."

When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.

In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been the source of repeated false accusations in the past.

And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and stability" across the Middle East.

[Oct 17, 2017] Ukraine and Latin America Same neocon cabal behind political disruption by Wayne Madsen

Notable quotes:
"... Union Guerrera Blanca. ..."
"... Previously published in the ..."
"... Wayne Madsen Report ..."
Mar 24, 2014 | www.intrepidreport.com
The neocons are as an influencing factor in America's foreign policy today as they were during the darkest days of the Bush administration. The coup d'état by globalist bankers allied with neo-Nazis and Zionist cadres in Ukraine is linked through several neocon operations in Washington, DC, to the aggressive push by the United States to topple progressive governments and politicians in Latin America.

And with the arch-neocon former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, now serving as the Undersecretary General of the United Nations for Political Affairs, the United States can enlist the United Nations and the "Slippery Eel," the name South Korean journalists applied to Ban Ki-moon, to provide cover for its covert operations in Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, Georgia, Venezuela, Colombia, El Salvador, and other targeted nations.

Feltman works hand-in-glove with other neocons, such as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, the wife of arch neocon from the Bush era Robert Kagan of the infamous Kagan family of "New American Century" advocates; U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt; and Daniel Rubinstein, the special envoy for Syria who helped punish Russia for the retrocession of Crimea by kicking out the Syrian embassy and consulates from U.S. shores. The U.S. neocons who continue to influence U.S. foreign policy act as a "cabal" in the truest sense of the dark and sinister school of thought from which its name in derived: Kabbalah, a doctrine which can best be described as Machiavellianism on steroids.

It is because of their belief that any ends justify their means, individuals like Feltman, Nuland, Pyatt, and others have no problem supporting the neo-Nazi takeover of Ukraine's internal security, defense, justice, and other critical agencies. Giving neo-Nazis control over Ukraine's national security infrastructure hastens the possibility of armed conflict with Russia in many contested areas of the region, from Crimea to eastern Ukraine and Odessa to Transnistria in Moldova. To ensure events are steered in the direction the neocon cabal want them to be directed, "former" members of the Israel Defense Force are providing consultation to the neo-Nazis now running Ukraine's security and law enforcement ministries and agencies.

Coordinating U.S. foreign policy between Ukraine and Russia on one hand and Latin America on the other, are non-governmental and para-governmental organization ideolgical heirs of similar extreme right-wing organizations that operated on behalf of the CIA, the "Captive Nations" initiative, which employed many World War II-era Nazis and fascists among Eastern European émigrés in the United States. Today it is the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Freedom House, American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy that are assisting individuals like Nuland, Pyatt, and Feltman in carrying out the neocon policy of destabilization and violence to further the aims of an imperialistic U.S. foreign policy, a policy little changed from the Bush to the Obama administration.

One neocon who spans the generational transition from the Cold War era to the present "Cold War II" redux is Paula Dobriansky, who was placed in charge of the Bush administration's "Freedom Agenda" as the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and Democracy Promotion. It was during her tenure at State that the U.S. attempted to oust Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an abortive coup. Dobriansky and her fellow neocons from the Bush administration, Dov Zakheim, Eric Edelman, Robert Kagan (Nuland's husband), Eliot Cohen, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Dan Senor, all major league cabalists in their own right, now help provide the "talking points" and other propaganda services relied upon by their cohorts inside the Obama administration.

Dobriansky today is a fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center but she got her start in neocon politics when her father, the founder of the "Captive Nations, Dr. Lev Dobriansky of Georgetown University, an anti-Communist émigré from Ukraine, was calling many of the shots against the "Evil Empire" during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Paula Dobriansky served on Ronald Reagan's National Security Council and as an assistant director of the defunct U.S. Information Agency during the George H W Bush administration. Her father, as the founder of the right-wing National Captive Nations Week Committee, which employed a number of ex-fascists and Nazis from Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states, Hungary, and Romania, also was close to a number of Zionist organizations and their leadership.

Lev Dobriansky was a true cabalist from the Kabbalah mold -- he could deal equally with Nazi war criminals who helped exterminate Europe's Jews, many members of his Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, while supporting the efforts of the Campaign for Soviet Jewry, which advocated strong sanctions against the Soviet Union for its Soviet Jewish emigration policies. As a member of the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, Dobriansky worked under OSS chief William Donovan in running many Ukrainian SS officers and their Ukrainian Nazi collaborators to safety in the United States and Latin America via the infamous "rat line" used by the OSS's Operation Paperclip. Many of these Nazis later found employment with the Ukrainian Service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, over which Lev's daughter Paula had oversight as the assistant director of the U.S. Information Agency under Bush 41. Dobriansky's death in 2008 was mourned by many of the products of CIA- and George Soros-financed anti-Russian and pro-globalist "themed revolutions," including Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko (who is married to Katherine Chumachenko, a Reagan administration colleague and friend of Paula Dobriansky) and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Up until his death, Dobriansky was active in operations aimed at toppling Russian President and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin from power. He was an ardent supporter of the themed revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and abortive "color revolutions" in Moldova and Belarus. His friends included American Enterprise Institute-trained and current Polish Foreign Minister and chief NATO sabre-rattler Radek Sikorski, who is married to the neocon former Washington Post editor Anne Applebaum and many of the second generation of Cold Warriors inside the Radio Free Europe/Liberty structure. One of them, Paul A. Goble, continues to talk about "Captive Nations," but these are inside the Russian Federation itself: North Caucasus, Middle Volga (Idel-Ural), and the land of the Cossacks. The fascist and imperialistic rhetoric by the neo-fascists and neo-Nazis in the employment of the U.S. propaganda structure pose an existential threat to Russia, a threat that a clear majority of Russians will support Putin to eradicate at its very roots.

Lev Dobriansky, like his daughter and her neocon pals, also had an interest in supporting Latin America's worst fascist regimes. Lev's leadership of the American Security Council, based in CIA-lousy Culpepper, Virginia, brought him into close contact with other members of the extreme right-wing World Anti-Communist League (WACL), including Madison Avenue advertising executive Marvin Liebman, and members of the John Birch Society, including Spruille Braden, the former U.S. ambassador to Argentina. Another WACL alum, Roman Zwarycz, became a close adviser to President Yushchenko after the 2004 "Orange Revolution."

Liebman's history matched that of so many of the fathers and grandfathers of today's neocons. Formerly a member of the Young Communist League in New York, Liebman eventually became the brains behind the American media's "Red Scare" propaganda operations. Liebman, an arch-Zionist, hated the Soviet Union for its alleged harsh treatment of Jews and he supported the terrorist Irgun in its campaign against the British mandate authorities in Palestine. Liebman also was opposed to UN membership and U.S. recognition of mainland China, which he referred to as "Red China." Liebman converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism, a path taken by so many other right-wing Jews, including columnist Robert Novak, CNBC host Larry Kudlow, and Rite Aid owner and right-wing cause deep-pocketed donor Lewis Lehrman.

And Liebman had a big secret. Just as with those who are calling for sanctions against Russia today over Ukraine today, Liebman had another reason to despise the Soviet Union in addition to its alleged Jewish emigration policies. Liebman was a closeted homosexual who "came out" in a 1990 letter to his close friend William F. Buckley. Many of those cabalists who are currently calling for sanctions against Russia over Crimea have other motives and they include a pathological opposition to Russia's policies against government advocacy for and recognition of homosexual lifestyles.

Dobriansky would also establish a close relationship with another right-wing émigré from eastern Europe, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. Dobriansky and his daughter became champions of arming radical Islamist guerrillas to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and later the Russian government in Chechnya.

Lev Dobriansky is said to have acted in a U.S. government "official capacity" in Chile from 1975 to 1976, a few years after the CIA helped to topple and assassinate Chile's socialist President Salvador Allende. There is reason to believe that Dobriansky was working in Chile for the CIA in support of Operation Condor, which targeted leftists across the southern cone of South America who opposed the fascist regimes of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and other dictatorships in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil.

From 1982 to 1986, Dobriansky served as the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas. However, there is evidence that Dobriansky was helping to coordinate the delivery of CIA money to Nicaraguan Contras and El Salvadorean death squads through international bank branches in Nassau, while his daughter Paula was tending to the details of what would become known as the "Iran-Contra" scandal from her perch inside the Reagan National Security Council. Lev Dobriansky and his daughter were close to the former chief of El Salvador's intelligence service, Roberto D'Aubisson, the head of the largest and most notorious death squads, Union Guerrera Blanca. D'Aubisson was one of the conspirators behind the 1980 assassination of the Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero.

While Dobriansky was in Nassau, two of his WACL colleagues served as U.S. ambassadors in Central America: Lewis Tambs in Costa Rica and Alberto Piedra in Guatemala.

Concurrent with State Department involvement in the coup against the democratically-elected government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is the current neocon campaign to destabilize the democratically-elected government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela; the undemocratic ouster of Bogota's former leftist guerrilla and democratically-elected mayor Gustavo Petro by the CIA-supported Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos; an attempt to overturn the election of leftist former guerrilla Sanchez Ceren of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in favor of Norman Quijano of the ARENA party, founded by death squad leader D'Aubisson: and corporate media smear campaigns against Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, a former leftist Tupamaro guerrilla; Ecuador's leftist president Rafael Correa; and Bolivia's progressive president Evo Morales.

Massive amounts of neocon cash have been delivered to the neocon cabal's main hope to replace the Chavistas of Venezuela: failed presidential candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski, the grandson of alleged Jewish Holocaust survivors from Poland.

Among the lobbyists in Washington for the Ukrainian junta in Kiev, including its neo-Nazi members, is the NCSJ, the former National Campaign for Soviet Jewry, one of Lev Dobriansky's closest allies. NCSJ provided lobbying support to acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk during his recent visit to Washington and has maintained close liaison with Pyatt in Kiev.

America's foreign policy toward Russia and eastern Europe, along with Latin America, has been taken hostage by the same sinister cabal of neocons, neo-Nazi collaborators, and global bankers who have, since the 1950s, hijacked American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Update: To the list of anti-Russian cabalists, we can also add Jacob Lew, the Treasury secretary who is helping to formulate and enact U.S. sanctions against dozens of Russian officials and businessmen, and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. Both are earnest Zionists and advocates of the return to a Cold War stance with Russia.

Trade sanctions against Russian government officials, businessmen and the Bank Rossiya, which are authorized by President Obama, were drawn up by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Major input for the sanctions list came from David Cohen, yet another Zionist neocon, who is the Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report .

[Oct 17, 2017] Latin-Americanization of the xUSSR space is what essentially State Department tried to accomplish. They were successful in Ukraine. by Robert Parry

While the USA pursued their geopolitical goals in supporting the coup d'état against corrupt Yanukovich government by less corrupt western-Ukrainian nationalists (and a difficult clan on oligarch, as Yanukovich was a puppet of Donetsk oligarch clan) , this is actually disaster capitalism in action... There is very little Ukrainians can do now to improve their standard of living which dropped at least two times since 2014. Civil war remains a drain on economy and selling assets to western companies does not improve the standard fo living iether. For 20K grivna (less then $740 a month) you can hire top level specialist in Ukraine (regular salary is less then $150 a month). Economy is still supported by the housing boom, but we know how such things might end.
The neocons are now as important factor in America's foreign policy today as they were during the darkest days of the Bush administration. And like on old time the Ukrainian coup has all traces of globalist bankers allied with local compradors operating under fig leaf of Western-Ukrainian nationalism (which were simply puppets in a much bigger financial and geopolitical game). It is the same aggressive push by the United States to topple governments and politicians in Latin America to advance the USA geopolitical or economic interests.
See also Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism " Latin America once again became a school where the United States studied how to execute imperial violence through proxies. After World War II, in the name of containing Communism, the United States, mostly through the actions of local allies, executed or encouraged coups in, among other places, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina and patronized a brutal mercenary war in Nicaragua. Latin America became a laboratory tor counter-insurgency, as military officials and covert operators applied insights learned in the region to Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. By the end of the Cold War, Latin American security forces trained, funded, equipped, and incited by Washington had executed a reign of bloody terror - hundreds of thousands killed, an equal number tortured, millions driven into exile - from which the region has yet to fully recover."
Parry provides an interesting perspective on neoconservative intellectuals who now are driving the expansion of the US-led neoliberal empire into xUSSR space. In this sense Ukrainian nationalists serve as a proxies of an American imperialism which is driven by a combination of neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and the euphoria from the victory Cold War, of which Ukraine civil war is the tragic endgame.
Parry does not addresses the controversial role of Russia, which actually helped to start the Donbass civil war as initially Putin promised that the Ukraine territories who will vote "yes" in referendums to join Russia will be accepted to Russia but soon changed his mind. And later supplied arms to the insurgents.
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America. ..."
"... During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. ..."
"... Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "] ..."
"... Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force. ..."
"... According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife. ..."
Dec 28, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives outraged over Russia's limited intervention to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are demanding that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian" intervention there.

In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast majority of the casualties have been inflicted by the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do the street fighting.

In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected president last February. It's all about white hats for the current Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.

... ... ...

For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.

Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.

Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan remains an expert in presenting foreign policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.

During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.

... ... ...

Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades ago and Bush's vanquishing of the Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago the legacy of those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions of the American people are now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.

Indeed, while the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year.

Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "]

Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.

A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a hand in crafting the attack on her ostensible boss, President Obama.

According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.

Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she indicated that she holds similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

[Oct 16, 2017] Instead of blaming herself for selling herself to Wall Street and converting into yet another warmonger Hillary is still acusing the Kremlin. What a pathetic loser

It is so convenient to blame Russians ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Originally from: Cyber cold war is just getting started, claims Hillary Clinton

This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said."

Democrats had urged her to be silent after her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.

Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."

She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts of our society."

She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not believe in free trade.

In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.

"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."

She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.

Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said.

"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."

The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.

[Oct 16, 2017] Assange: It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen

Lady Makbeth of the USA?
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.

"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence," Clinton told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .

Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her 2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian government.

Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.

"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of that."

WikiLeaks received thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to the US election.

Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day – 7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to interfere in the election.

It was also the day the Washington Post published the 2005 Access Hollywood recording of Donald Trump's lewd comments about sexually harassing women .

Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of the Access Hollywood tape.

"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information, promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood Access tape."

Clinton is promoting her election memoir, What Happened, in which she details her thoughts on her unsuccessful campaign for president .

In September she told David Remnick from the New Yorker that she believed the Australian founder of WikiLeaks may be "on the payroll of the Kremlin" .

"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.

"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political ledger."

Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state parties".

In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with Hillary Clinton".

"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.

"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."

Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)

There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu

October 15, 2017

[Oct 15, 2017] Kerry Re-writes History of U.S. Support for Color Revolutions by Wayne MADSEN

Hopefully soon those tactics polished by neoliberals can be used against neoliberal regimes... Boomerang tend to return.
The charge of corruption is perfectly applicable to neoliberal regimes as well. The only question who will pay the money as color revolution is externally financed revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... he is not only the chief foreign policy officer of the United States but he served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2009 to 2013 and was a member of the committee from the very outset of America's "themed" or "color" revolutions, beginning with the October 5th Revolution, which overthrew Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. ..."
"... The chief of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, correctly said that the United States is funding Russian opposition groups and using sanctions over Ukraine to promote civil society discontent leading to a color revolution in Russia. The alarming record of U.S. support for color revolutions around the world speaks for itself. ..."
"... After the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 in a street protest-turned-revolution that followed the Gene Sharp/CIA manual to the tee and which was backed by the granddaddy of all NGO protest groups, OTPOR!, there were some 20 themed revolutions in rapid succession. These were followed by the "Arab Spring" themed revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Soros and his NGOs' fingerprints were found on smaller attempted revolutions from Honduras to Maldives. OTPOR personnel were even dispatched to some of these countries, courtesy of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to assist in the fomenting of rebellion. ..."
"... After the CIA-engineered coup against the democratically-elected president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya in 2009, the military-backed junta received the support of the wealthy elites who marched in the streets in support of the junta and adopted the color white in support of the military-installed president Roberto Micheletti. What did then-Senator Kerry say about that themed coup, the first carried out by the Obama administration? Kerry supported Zelaya's goal of returning to power because Zelaya was the democratically-elected president of Honduras. Today, Kerry does not support the return of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to power in Kiev even though he too was democratically-elected and forced out unconstitutionally. When the Law Library of the U.S. Congress concluded that Zelaya's removal was unconstitutional, it was Senator Kerry who demanded that the finding be reversed. Surely, Mr. Kerry learned the meaning of the word "hypocrite" while attending Yale and Boston College. ..."
"... In the NED- and USAID-financed themed revolutions in Libya and Syria, factory-fresh flags of the former regimes, the King Idris regime of Libya and post-colonial and pro-French "Syrian Republic," respectively, appeared practically overnight on the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli, as well as Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus. The old Kingdom of Libya standard is now the national flag of the dysfunctional "Republic of Libya," which is split between rival governments in Tripoli and Tobruk. In the case of Syria, the pre-Assad flag is now used by the Salafist-allied Free Syrian Army and is recognized as the flag of Syria by the United States, NATO, and the European Union. ..."
"... Kerry's entire State Department top echelon has supported color revolutions under the Obama administration's R2P (Responsibility to Protect) rubric since 2009. Many of the interventionists, including Nuland, her human rights point man Thomas Melia, and Jeffrey Feltman (now the Political Undersecretary General under UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after having served as the chief point man for the Arab Spring at the State Department) are either holdovers from the discredited George W. Bush administration or well-known neo-conservative political hacks. They are joined by the "neo-liberal" R2P architects, most notably national security adviser Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power. ..."
Jun 03, 2015 | www.strategic-culture.org

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry either has a blind spot when it comes to the last 15 years of U.S. foreign policy or he told a big whopping lie in Geneva. Kerry, in defining U.S. action in Ukraine, said that "We [the United States] are not involved in multiple color revolutions". Someone in Kerry's position should know better. After all, he is not only the chief foreign policy officer of the United States but he served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2009 to 2013 and was a member of the committee from the very outset of America's "themed" or "color" revolutions, beginning with the October 5th Revolution, which overthrew Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

The chief of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, correctly said that the United States is funding Russian opposition groups and using sanctions over Ukraine to promote civil society discontent leading to a color revolution in Russia. The alarming record of U.S. support for color revolutions around the world speaks for itself.

What is even more galling about Kerry's denial of U.S. operations aimed at overthrowing various governments is that it was he who chaired a series of hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1987 to 1989 on the covert Central Intelligence Agency war to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. In 25 years, Kerry has gone from a firebrand opponent of CIA coup d'état and destabilization operations to a consummate cover-up artist for these activities.

After the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 in a street protest-turned-revolution that followed the Gene Sharp/CIA manual to the tee and which was backed by the granddaddy of all NGO protest groups, OTPOR!, there were some 20 themed revolutions in rapid succession. These were followed by the "Arab Spring" themed revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Soros and his NGOs' fingerprints were found on smaller attempted revolutions from Honduras to Maldives. OTPOR personnel were even dispatched to some of these countries, courtesy of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to assist in the fomenting of rebellion.

Mr. Kerry says Washington was not involved in "multiple color revolutions". Why did he use the term "multiple color revolutions?" Because there has been repeated U.S. support for multiple color revolutions as the following list attests:

The United States supported the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Olive Tree Revolution in Palestine (that saw Hamas come to power and effectively split the Palestinian independence movement), the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Purple Revolution in Iraq (that saw a Shi'a-dominated government friendly to Iran come to power, spelling the end of the unified Iraqi state), Blue Revolution in Kuwait, Saffron Revolution in Burma (one that was crushed by the military) and the Crimson Revolution in Tibet (put down by the Chinese security forces), and the abortive Green Revolution in Iran. There were also attempted themed revolutions in Moldova (the Grape Revolution), Mongolia (the Yellow Revolution, which was partially successful), Uzbekistan (the Cotton Revolution), the autonomous Russian Republic of Bashkortostan (Orange Revolution), Ecuador (the Police Revolution), Bolivia (the Gas Revolution in the four secessionist natural gas-producing provinces), and Belarus (the Denim Revolution).

Not to be omitted is the Orange Democratic Movement's uprising in Kenya, one that saw thousands murdered before the Orange movement's leader Raila Odinga became Prime Minister in a power-sharing government. These color revolutions were followed by the U.S. - and Soros - supported Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, the Lotus Revolution in Egypt, the Twitter Revolution in Syria, and the uprising in Yemen. From the Middle East, the revolution engineers set out to attempt themed coups in Maldives (Yellow Revolution), Indonesia (the ill-fated "Sandal Revolution"), and the "Pots and Pans Revolution in Venezuela. Soros's "Yellow Revolution" government in Maldives was ousted in a counter-coup by the vice president and police.

After the CIA-engineered coup against the democratically-elected president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya in 2009, the military-backed junta received the support of the wealthy elites who marched in the streets in support of the junta and adopted the color white in support of the military-installed president Roberto Micheletti. What did then-Senator Kerry say about that themed coup, the first carried out by the Obama administration? Kerry supported Zelaya's goal of returning to power because Zelaya was the democratically-elected president of Honduras. Today, Kerry does not support the return of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to power in Kiev even though he too was democratically-elected and forced out unconstitutionally. When the Law Library of the U.S. Congress concluded that Zelaya's removal was unconstitutional, it was Senator Kerry who demanded that the finding be reversed. Surely, Mr. Kerry learned the meaning of the word "hypocrite" while attending Yale and Boston College.

The history of U.S. support for themed revolutions continued well after the Arab Spring. After the second Ukrainian themed revolution against the Yanukovych presidency, the so-called "Euromaidan Revolution," there were also attempted themed uprisings in Russia (the "Blue Bucket Revolution") and Macedonia.

There is no way on earth that Kerry can deny the themed color nature of U.S.-funded uprisings. As first seen with the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004, which was most definitely a Soros- and CIA-funded revolution that denied presidential winner Yanukovych the presidency and installed pro-U.S. Viktor Yushchenko and the corrupt Yulia Tymoshenko into power, flags and orange banners were ubiquitous on Kiev's Central Square. In the most recent Ukrainian "Euromaidan" revolution, revealed by America's bread-distributing maven of European affairs, Victoria Nuland, to have cost the U.S. taxpayers $5 billion, factory fresh red and black Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) flags appeared on Kiev's Central Square, renamed Maidan Square, and throughout Kiev.

In the NED- and USAID-financed themed revolutions in Libya and Syria, factory-fresh flags of the former regimes, the King Idris regime of Libya and post-colonial and pro-French "Syrian Republic," respectively, appeared practically overnight on the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli, as well as Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus. The old Kingdom of Libya standard is now the national flag of the dysfunctional "Republic of Libya," which is split between rival governments in Tripoli and Tobruk. In the case of Syria, the pre-Assad flag is now used by the Salafist-allied Free Syrian Army and is recognized as the flag of Syria by the United States, NATO, and the European Union.

China has not been immune to the American color revolutions. China's defenses against such operations were tested first in Tibet and most recently in Hong Kong. Soros's daughter, Andrea Soros Colombel, is the founder and president of the Trace Foundation and the co-founder, along with her husband, of the Tsadra Foundation. Both organizations directly support the Tibetan government-in-exile and their fingerprints were on the 2008 bloody rebellion in Tibet. Soros's OSI Burma Project/Southeast Asia also had its fingerprints on the 2007 Buddhist monks' rebellion in Burma, the so-called Saffron Revolution, the same theme applied to the Tibetan uprising in 2008. In 2011, a call went out for a Jasmine Revolution from the U.S.-based Chinese-language website Boxun.com.

The color revolution concept was on display in Calgary, Alberta where Conservative Naheed Nenshi, a Shi'a Ismaili, rode into the mayor's office in a so-called "Purple Revolution". While not a coup, the elevation of Nenshi was heralded as a great "multicultural" success for an otherwise xenophobic and racist political party. Nenshi made no secret of his support for the Keystone XL pipeline and his disdain for the First Nation treaties that govern Ottawa's relations with native tribal territories. Nenshi and his Conservatives are now trying to abrogate treaties with the First Nations and seize their hydrocarbon resources, something that is akin to a coup d'état against tribal sovereignty.

Kerry's entire State Department top echelon has supported color revolutions under the Obama administration's R2P (Responsibility to Protect) rubric since 2009. Many of the interventionists, including Nuland, her human rights point man Thomas Melia, and Jeffrey Feltman (now the Political Undersecretary General under UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after having served as the chief point man for the Arab Spring at the State Department) are either holdovers from the discredited George W. Bush administration or well-known neo-conservative political hacks. They are joined by the "neo-liberal" R2P architects, most notably national security adviser Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power.

John Kerry claims there has been no U.S. support for multiple color revolutions. Mr. Kerry should be sent Crayola's 64 crayon pack as a reminder that there has been at least that number of color revolutions either hatched or planned by the United States since the October 5th Revolution in Belgrade.

[Oct 15, 2017] Could we reverse a hacked presidential election by Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart

Those two "propaganda solders" from Yale release outright lies about "stealing information from 90,000 voting records in the state of Illinois alone. " as it this is a fact. Looks like those students learned quickly from their Yale "color revolution" teachers ;-)
The USA perfected election interference technique in dozen of color revolution in xUSSR republics and other areas of the globe. Actually the first color revolution was organized in 1974.
Now DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) and elements of intelligence agencies and MS who support them simply can not quit... Now quitting involved potential significant PR damage... McCarthyism has its own internal dynamics. The danger for DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) now is that if Russian were investigated why Israelis and Saudies (along with other Gulf monarchies) were not.
Please note that Yale is the main US educational institution that teaches foreign students color revolution theory and practice... See, for example Sott.net and Kerry Re-writes History of U.S. Support for Color Revolutions
Notable quotes:
"... Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an American president through active vote manipulation? ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.msn.com

In the past few weeks, we have learned that the Russian government reached more than 10 million Americans with a misinformation campaign on Facebook, and that hackers targeted 21 state election systems , stealing information from 90,000 voting records in the state of Illinois alone. These are just the latest of many revelations about Russia's unprecedented interference in the election.

It is cold comfort that we have no evidence so far that Moscow actually manipulated vote tallies to change the election's outcome.

But what if it emerges that Russian operatives were successful on that front as well? Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an American president through active vote manipulation?

The Constitution offers no clear way to remedy such a disaster.

Any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia raises its own set of important issues -- now being assiduously investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller. But the disturbing scenario in which hackers manipulate election results, conceivably rendering the true vote tally unrecoverable, would pose a unique threat to a foundational principle of our democracy: rule by the consent of the governed. We would in no sense have a government "by the people."

Although such a constitutional crisis now seems all too plausible, we have yet to seriously consider provisions that might protect our democracy -- measures that could allow us to reverse such a result.

... ... ...

Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart are students at Yale Law School.

[Oct 15, 2017] The Mysterious World of Social Media Manipulation by Samuel Earle

When people stop to trust MSM, rumor mill emerges as a substitute. Neoliberal MSM lost people trust. Now what ?
Notable quotes:
"... But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes. ..."
"... The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post ..."
"... There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.msn.com

Now the focus is less on Trump's extensive personal social media following and more on the roles that Facebook and Twitter may have played in alleged Russian interference in the election. Congress is calling on Facebook and Twitter to disclose details about how they may have been used by Russia-linked entities to try to influence the election in favor of Trump.

But despite the much-publicized case in the U.S., the pervasiveness of these political strategies on social media, from the distribution of disinformation to organized attacks on opponents, the tactics remain largely unknown to the public, as invisible as they are invasive. Citizens are exposed to them the world over, often without ever realizing it.

Drawing on two recent reports by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and independent research, Newsweek has outlined the covert ways in which states and other political actors use social media to manipulate public opinion around the world, focusing on six illustrative examples: the U.S., Azerbaijan, Israel, China, Russia and the U.K.

It reveals how "Cyber-troops" -- the name given to this new political force by the OII -- are enlisted by states, militaries and parties to secure power and undermine opponents, through a combination of public funding, private contracts and volunteers, and how bots -- fake accounts that purport to be real people -- can produce as many as 1,000 social media posts a day.

By generating an illusion of support for an idea or candidate in this way, bots drive up actual support by sparking a bandwagon effect -- making something or someone seem normal and like a palatable, common-sense option. As the director of the OII, Philip Howard, argues : "If you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you are what's legitimate. You are creating truth."

On social media, the consensus goes to whoever has the strongest set of resources to make it.

The U.S.: Rise of the bots

America sees a wider range of actors attempting to shape and manipulate public opinion online than any country -- with governments, political parties, and individual organizations all involved.

In its report, the OII describes 2016's Trump vs. Hillary Clinton presidential contest as a " watershed moment " when social media manipulation was "at an all-time high."

Many of the forces at play have been well-reported: whether the hundreds of thousands of bots or the right-wing sites like Breitbart distributing divisive stories. In Michigan, in the days before the election, fake news was shared as widely as professional journalism . Meanwhile firms like Cambridge Analytica, self-described specialists in "election management," worked for Trump to target swing voters, mainly on Facebook.

While Hillary Clinton's campaign also engaged in such tactics, with big-data and pro-Clinton bots multiplying in number as her campaign progressed, Trump's team proved the most effective. Overall, pro-Trump bots generated five times as much activity at key moments of the campaign as pro-Clinton ones. These Twitter bots -- which often had zero followers -- copied each other's messages and sent out advertisements alongside political content. They regularly retweeted Dan Scavino, Trump's social media director.

One high-ranking Republican Party figure told OII that campaigning on social media was like "the Wild West." "Anything goes as long as your candidate is getting the most attention," he said. And it worked: A Harvard study concluded that overall Trump received 15 percent more media coverage than Clinton.

Targeted advertising to specific demographics was also central to Trump's strategy. Clinton spent two and a half times more than Trump on television adverts and had a 73% share of nationally focused digital ads.

But Trump's team, led by Cambridge Analytica for the final months, focused on sub-groups. In one famous example, an anti-Clinton ad that repeated her notorious speech from 1996 describing so-called "super-predators" was shown exclusively to African-American voters on Facebook in areas where the Republicans hoped to suppress the Democrat vote -- and again, it worked.

"It's well known that President Obama's campaign pioneered the use of microtargeting in 2012," a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica tells Newsweek . "But big data and new ad tech are now revolutionizing communications and marketing, and Cambridge Analytica is at the forefront of this paradigm shift."

"Communication enhances democracy, not endangers it. We enable voters to have their concerns heard, and we help political candidates communicate their policy positions."

The firm argues that its partnership with American right-wing candidates -- first Ted Cruz and then Trump -- is purely circumstantial. "We work in politics, but we're not political," the spokesperson said.

The company is part-owned by the family of Robert Mercer, which was one of Trump's major donors, while Stephen K. Bannon sat on the company's board until he was appointed White House chief strategist (he was dismissed from his post seven months later). According to Bannon's March federal financial disclosure, he held shares worth as much as $5 million in the company . On October 11, it was also revealed that the House Intelligence Committee has asked the company to provide information for its ongoing probe into Russian interference.

But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes.

The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post reports that it recently secured work with the State Department.

There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views.

Emilio Ferrara, an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Southern California Computer Science department, even suggests the possibility of "a black-market for reusable political disinformation bots," ready to be utilitized wherever they are needed, the world over. These fears appeared to be confirmed by reports that the same bots used to back Trump were then deployed against eventual winner Emmanuel Macron in this year's French presidential election.

[Oct 15, 2017] Did Trump Call for Ten Times More Nukes, asks Ron Paul

Oct 15, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

October 11, 2017 The media is having a field day with a supposedly leaked report that President Trump called for a ten-fold increase in US nuclear weapons in July. That is the occasion of Secretary of State Tillerson calling the president a "moron," according to the media. It's all supposed to point to how ridiculous President Trump is for wanting more nuclear weapons. But who's idea was the current one trillion dollar nuclear weapons "modernization" plan? It was then-president Obama's idea. And who appropriated the money to get started? Congress. More on the bipartisan support for military corporate welfare in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/HNBiE142xqg

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity .

[Oct 14, 2017] The Russiagate Scandal Descends Into Total Absurdity

Oct 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
A reasonable person would also conclude that the tiny number of these advertisements and comments – unearthed after frantic and relentless searches by the social media platforms after they were put under intense pressure from the politicians to come up with something – their vague and contradictory material, and their nebulous connection to Russia, in fact proves that there was NO sinister Russian plot to swing last year's election to Donald Trump by using social media, or even a Russian plot via social media to create doubts about it.

There is however nothing remotely reasonable about the true believers of the Russiagate scandal. On the contrary they have latched onto this material – whose lack of substance in fact proves the absurdity of their claims – not as disproving their claims but rather as vindication that what they have been saying all along about "Russian meddling in the election" has now been proved to be true. A whole stream of strange articles (see for example this one in the Financial Times) has appeared in the establishment media which all but say this.

To which one can only say that when evidence of the non-existence of a conspiracy is taken as proof of its existence it becomes clear that all connection to reality and indeed to sanity has been lost.

(4) Attempted Russian hacking of state voting systems

In some ways this was the most bizarre recent claim of all. It has been thoroughly discussed by Glenn Greenwald and to his commentary I have little to add.

What makes this episode bizarre is that the claim that the Russians hacked or attempted to hack the voting systems of US states is one which has been made repeatedly over the course of the scandal, only to be invariably and repeatedly proved to be false.

The latest iteration of this claim was in an article in USA Today sourced from the Department of Homeland Security which claimed that the Russians had attempted to hack the voting systems of 21 states.

Needless to say the claim was immediately picked up and repeated with enthusiasm by all sorts of people until two of the states involved – Wisconsin and California – categorically denied it, upon which the Department of Homeland Security was forced to issue a retraction.

To which one can only ask: how often does this story have to be refuted before it is accepted as false?

* * *

Overall one senses a scandalous story of nefarious collusion and double-dealing between the Trump campaign and Russia which now rests on nothing but hot air as all attempts to prove it true fail one by one.

In the meantime the American public and even parts of the media are losing interest, as shown by the fact that the scandal hardly comes up in White House news conferences any more.

Serious damage however continues to be done.

The scandal has paralysed the foreign policy of the US government as Donald Trump's signature policy upon which he was elected – rapprochement with Russia – has been blocked because of a concocted scandal with no substance behind it.

The result unsurprisingly is an angry President, resentful at how his signature policy has been blocked, who having no clear idea what to do, is hitting out in all directions, sometimes by behaving spitefully towards his own staff.

Moreover, as the disintegration of the scandal makes it all but impossible for the President to be removed from office through his impeachment (the original intention of those who concocted it), this chaotic and unhappy state of affairs looks likely to continue indefinitely.

* * *

But then - Just when you thought the Hillary Clinton concocted 'Russia election meddling' story could not get any more stupid, CNN outdoes itself.

(5) CNN Claims Russia Used 'Pokemon Go' To Meddle In US Election

via Alex Christoforou ,

Putin has weaponized Pokemon to subvert US democracy.

Never mind Russia dismantling America's democratic system with only $100,000 in Facebook ads , which did not even discuss the US election, Russia has now weaponized Pokemon.

We can now expect to see Pokemon characters subpoenaed to testify in front of Congress.

Exclusive: Russian-linked meddling effort extended to YouTube, Tumblr and even Pokémon Go https://t.co/Tw6WATNizC pic.twitter.com/bCvVYPKIki

-- CNN (@CNN) October 12, 2017

Via The Gateway Pundit

CNN broke an 'exclusive' story on Thursday in their desperate attempt to publish anything with the word 'Russians' in the title. CNN is now claiming the Russians meddled in the 2016 presidential election through Pokemon Go.

How did we go from Trump colluded with the Kremlin to Pokemon ads?

your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

vortmax , Oct 13, 2017 6:58 PM

"The scandal which more than anything else has defined his Presidency"

Stopped reading there.

GUS100CORRINA -> vortmax , Oct 13, 2017 7:00 PM

The Russiagate Scandal Descends Into Total Absurdity

My response : So is Mueller fired???? Inquiring minds want to know.

TGDavis -> GUS100CORRINA , Oct 13, 2017 7:05 PM

No, Mueller will continue until someone commits a crime.

Rapunzal -> TGDavis , Oct 13, 2017 7:13 PM

It was from day 1 absurd. But they keep the story running because the goal of the parasitic elites is to control the narrative on the news channels. They will get even more aggressive the closer we will get to the final economic collapse. They need to overload us with any BS they can find to completely kill our senses for what is real and what not. They don't even care we find out about all the false flags and hoaxes because tomorrow will be a new one. It's called information overload.

MozartIII -> Rapunzal , Oct 13, 2017 7:42 PM

They got nothing. Fucking Maroons!!!

loebster -> MozartIII , Oct 13, 2017 8:05 PM

Russiagate is the Joowitch elite's way of keeping Trump on track with WW3.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

JohnG -> loebster , Oct 13, 2017 8:51 PM

" Even as the Trump administration disintegrates – with the President publicly quarrelling with his Secretary of State......"

Here we go with anti-Trump Tyler again. Trump is doing JUST FUCKING FINE, and sez you, MF'er.

Kelly was clearly fucking with the press when he "denied" he was about to resign.

Fuck You fella, gal, whatever xe you tend to be today.......

SafelyGraze -> JohnG , Oct 14, 2017 12:28 AM

cnn has jumped the covfefe

Manthong -> SafelyGraze , Oct 14, 2017 10:05 AM

The Russians hacking Pac-Man to influence a Trump win has to be the looniest story.

Oh, it wasn't Pac-Man?

Well, that one is next.

[Oct 14, 2017] The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished by Mike Whitney

Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The Senate Intelligence Committee Finds No Evidence of Russian Hacking or Collusion

The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. "

Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here's more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)

That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here's a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?

Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don't bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

Beckow > , October 13, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?

But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing will happen.

All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria helping?

Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing. This is really embarrassing.

utu > , October 14, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama administration.

Greg Bacon > , Website October 14, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT

If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.

jacques sheete > , October 14, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT

@Johnny Rico

I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.

I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.

Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies from the usual suspects.

I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's all BS from the get-go.

Note the date.:

THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat beyond the facts.

-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 – PDF

http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1927sep-00123

jacques sheete > , October 14, 2017 at 12:21 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson

This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits comments entirely).

While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word, "insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!

If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I will apologize.

The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.

I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important things but utu has a better take on it.

it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]

I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on getting on yer knees to deliver it!

PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's take.)

Michael Kenny > , October 14, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT

We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians, and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.

Captain Nemo > , October 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia.

Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.

Ludwig Watzal > , Website October 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT

This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.

In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves.

TG > , October 14, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.

Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater.

The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished.

Flavius > , October 14, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years.

If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can absolutely count on.

Joe Hide > , October 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.

jilles dykstra > , October 14, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London

Pericles > , October 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks for that.

Biff > , October 14, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.

Beckow > , October 14, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course."

Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):

  • having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State Dept
  • expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
  • supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries (everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
  • publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails, accounts, etc
  • spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be in US
  • laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
  • meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.

None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that 'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.

What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco?

Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this level of nonsense?

[Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Biting satire...
Notable quotes:
"... The Tonight Show ..."
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the "Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.

Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced by the lone wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was already clear that Donald Trump was literally the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic primaries, mostly because of his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst. Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President, because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).

Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.

No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.

This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without , and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis, it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs. neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.

Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in The European Financial Review , or this report by Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate power.

So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

jilles dykstra, October 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the box'.

They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.

Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.

How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.

Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of Brussels.

You can fool all people .

Che Guava, October 13, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Jilles,

I am thinking you take the article too literally.

jacques sheete, October 13, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.

No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.

A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. (And everything else.)

"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories.

Does anyone else smell a rat or two?

Anon-og , October 13, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook."

Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is now changing!

[Oct 12, 2017] Trump, Mattis Deny Report President Proposed 10-Fold Nuke Increase by Jason Ditz

Oct 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

According to a new report from NBC News, President Trump responded to a slide at a cabinet meeting showing that the number of US nuclear weapons has gone down since the late 1960s by demanding a nearly ten-fold increase in the US arsenal .

This NBC report quoted unnamed officials present at the meeting, who said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had to explain to Trump why both legally and practically such a massive expansion of the arsenal was not practical. It was also reported that immediately following this meeting Tillerson declared Trump to be a "moron."

But as with the "moron" thing, which Trump denied happened but also later challenged Tillerson to an IQ test over, Trump insists that this too didn't happen , and accused NBC of making it entirely up for no reason.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis also said the report was "false," and claimed it was irresponsible for NBC to even report that the meeting happened. There has been no independent confirmation yet.

But President Trump has swung wildly around on the issue of nuclear weapons since elected. Even before inauguration he was sparring with NBC News on a report he wanted to start a global arms race until the world " comes to its senses ." Then in February he was widely reported as wanting to build up the nuclear arsenal because he believed America had "fallen behind."

[Oct 12, 2017] Another day -- another leak: Now MSN r>eports that Bannon said Trump has 30 percent chance of completing full term

Thos leakers are pretty persistent and have highly placed sources, if any... But taken as series of events, this is clearly has the stamp "color revolution" on it -- a multistep attempt of discreditation of the legitimately elected President, directed to force his removal of resignation.
Not that Trump is flawless (and with North Korea and Iran tweets he is helping greatly the leakers), and he already folded to neocons several months ago. Still the attempt is dirty and nasty...
Oct 12, 2017 | www.msn.com

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has privately confided that he believes President Donald Trump only has a 30% chance of completing his full term, a source told Vanity Fair .

According to two of Vanity Fair's sources with knowledge of the conversation, Bannon warned Trump several months ago that the biggest threat to his presidency is not impeachment by Congress, but the 25th Amendment -- which could allow his Cabinet to vote to remove him.

CNN has been unable to independently confirm these reported conversations. Bannon could not be reached for comment.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution is a measure that establishes a system for replacing the president or vice president in case there is a death, removal, resignation or incapacitation.

Also, if the vice president "and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" make a "written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president."

The 25th Amendment was adopted following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

According to the two sources who spoke to Vanity Fair, when Bannon raised the 25th Amendment as a concern, Trump responded by asking, "What's that?"

Bannon was fired from the White House in August.

The report comes amid a public feud between Trump and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who is retiring from Congress after 2018. The two have gone back and forth via Twitter, and Corker told The New York Times that he thinks Trump could take the US "on the path to World War III."

[Oct 12, 2017] Wheres the Beef The Senate Intel Committee and Russia by Mike Whitney

Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
Oct 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:

We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.

Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what's the point?

Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.

From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here's more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)

That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:

"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here's a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?

Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.

That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don't bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

[Oct 12, 2017] Secession and Catalonia What is a Nation

Oct 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

It becomes complicated. If the question of secession -- and not just secession of, as in the case of California, but of any entity -- really be examined, then wide variations in culture, history, ethnicity, economics and politics should be considered, taken into consideration.

While secession can be a viable and satisfactory solution to insoluble national problems, it is not always in every case advisable. There may be good reasons for a region, or a state, or a province to depart from a larger entity. I would argue strongly that the painful decision by the Southern states of the United States to secede from the American union in 1860-1861 was largely justified on historical, cultural and economic reasons, not to mention the politics involved.

Actually, the departures of those eleven states (or, actually, thirteen if you count the illegally thwarted departures of Kentucky and Missouri) came in two waves: the first began with South Carolina and continued with the exit of several Deep South states. Lincoln's call in April 1861 for troops to suppress South Carolina shocked the constitutional sensibilities of additional states in the Upper South, several of which had resisted the initial impulse to join the secession. And by early summer the Confederate States of America was a functioning nation, albeit a country facing invasion from its powerful former co-citizens.

But, I can think of instances when secession -- that is, the break-up of larger nations or empires -- is not only inadvisable, but positively injurious not only to the whole, but also to the respective seceding parts. The dissolution of the old Austria-Hungarian Empire in 1918, for instance, was not only a tragic mistake geopolitically, but made little sense economically, ethnically or historically. What was produced by the Treaties of Saint-Germain and Trianon was a succession of angrily dissatisfied, uber-nationalist states and displaced ethnic minorities imprisoned in new, arbitrary and irrational geographical expressions, waiting for the next powder keg to explode.

Interestingly, it was the heir to the wizened old Kaiser, Franz Josef, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who advocated additional decentralization of the old empire, with a third, Slavic kingdom, to join Austria and Hungary in a tripartite monarchy. That he and his wife, Sophie, were cruelly assassinated in Sarajevo in July 1914 by a Serbian nationalist, not only put into motion the coming of the First World War, but stymied what might have been a revitalized, regionalist future for the creaky old Habsburg Empire.

The castration of the ancient Russian homeland more recently is another case of good (American) intentions gone awry: the creation of new artificial states such as Byelorussia and Kazakhstan was not only historically and politically wrongheaded, but economically ill-advised. President Vladimir Putin's statement -- rightly understood -- that the break-up of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest disasters of the 20 th century was intended in this sense (and not , as some Russophobic Neocons attempt to construe it, as a lament for Communism!).

Talking to a friend recently, I expressed some serious skepticism about the recent plebiscite in Catalonia on the question of secession from Spain. My friend, knowing of my longstanding defense of secession historically when it concerns the South, was surprised. I attempted in a very brief discussion to explain why I demurred in the Catalan case, but the conversation was cut short.

What I would suggest is that the simple slogan that secession is always good policy is not really defensible, historically, culturally, economically, ethnically, or politically.

In the case of Catalonia, my arguments against secession are multiple, and range from the very practical and statistical, to the historical and cultural.

Let's start with the historical and cultural. Basically, the medieval County of Barcelona was united under the crown of Aragon in the mid-12 th century. The de facto dynastic union of Aragon and Catalonia (ruled by the Counts of Barcelona) became a de jure one, a legal one, in 1258. Thus, for eight centuries the region has been united with Spain. While the Catalan language, which while distinct from Spanish, is also similar to it, remained the lingua franca of rural areas, Castilian Spanish began to be spoken in more urban areas. But like the other kingdoms and principalities that came together to create Spain, Catalonia retained many of its customs, and regional and historic rights, within the new Spanish monarchy.

Historically, Spain was a composite, a dynastic federation and union of the ancient kingdoms of Castile and Leon, Aragon, Valencia, and then, the Kingdom of Navarra and the Basque territories in the north of the country, plus the formerly Muslim Kingdom of Granada in the South. Indeed, even at the time of the great monarch, Philip II -- supposedly, according to Anglophile and Protestant propagandists of the 16 th century, that all-powerful authoritarian monarch of the early modern era -- Spain was known as "las Espanas," that is, "the Spains," to indicate that King Philip was not actually the absolute king of a unitary, centralized royal state, but rather the monarch over a collection of fiercely regionalist states, each with its own traditions, history and parliaments (or "cortes"), but all together composing a country. Philip was dependent on them for financing his government. Each of those regions, those ancient components, of Spain had legal codes ("recopilaciones de leyes") which guided jurisprudence; those historic and regional rights were called "fueros," which we would render in English to mean "states' rights." Eventually portions of those statutes and legislated customs were cobbled together in a common law for the entire country. Nevertheless, the historic regions jealously guarded their respective traditions, languages, customs and fueros, and continued to do so throughout the remainder of Habsburg Spain into the early 19 th century.

Not only because of the dynastic question, but precisely over those fueros much of Spain underwent a series of bloody civil wars in the 19 th century. And what many foreigners find ironic and incomprehensible is that it was the so-called royalist "absolutistas," the defenders of the ancient regime and the old monarchy, the traditionalists who took the name "Carlists" after the dispossessed rightful heir to the throne, Don Carlos V ("de jure" king of "las Espanas") in 1833, who actually defended the historic regionalism and subsidiary of the old regime. For them it was a powerful king who ruled from Madrid, but who was also limited in his powers by the historic, unbridgeable rights of the "kingdoms" that made up the country, which guaranteed more essential and more local liberties to the citizens. Like the martyred King Charles I of England, who declared at his illegal trial that he was more the defender of the "rights of the good people of England" than the rump parliamentarians, the traditional monarchs in Spain, with the legacy of the patchwork of historic states and their sacralized customs and legal "recopilaciones,"offered far more self-government, far more "liberties" than any centralizing liberal state could or ever would.

During those several civil wars in the 19 th century, Catalonia stood, by and large, with the traditionalist defenders of the ancient regime, the Carlists. It was the Carlists who defended the fueros and who advocated the return of a strong king who actually had power, but whose powers were also circumscribed by the historic regions and traditions of the country. It was the Carlists -- and some of their most perceptive political philosophers (e.g., Jaime Balmes, Francisco Navarro Villoslada, Juan Vazquez de Mella) -- who understood that 19 th century liberalism, despite it slogan of "liberty and equality," would actually do away with and suppress those old regionalist statutes and protections, those intermediate institutions in society, that secured more liberties for the citizens.

Only 40% of the eligible voters in Catalonia participated in the recent plebiscite on possible independence; of those around 90% voted "Si." But that means that approximately just 30% of the electorate truly favors independence. And those political groups that most zealously support such a move are on the Left politically. They see the region, which is the most economically successful area of Spain and the most "Europeanized," as able to get a better deal economically within the European Union. They welcome globalism and a unitary European government with themselves also at the helm sharing power.

Of course, it is always good to hit the bloated central government in Madrid in the eye, but at what price?

The present-day proponents of independence do not represent the ancient and best traditions and historic legacy of Catalonia. Their advocacy of Catalan independence is not a comfortable fit with the long history of that region. The nationalism they advance owes far more to the liberal statism of the 19 th century than to the Catalan heritage of local and regional self-rule. Catalonia is not a nation-waiting-to-be-born; its association as one of the integral and historic, largely autonomous regions within Spain is its tradition. Catalonia can best find its destiny in reasserting its role as a largely self-governing region -- but within the historic federation of the Spanish kingdom.

ThreeCranes > , October 10, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

Good time to address the issue of secession. Krugman was just talking about this at the NYT and like most liberals he assumes that secession is a threat that the coastal states can wield over the benighted interior states. But is this truly a real threat?

I don't think so. First, when the South seceded, the North dragged them back. Today, if every county that voted Trump were to break away from Hillary voters they would take with them the most productive farming, manufacturing, mining, electricity generating sectors of the economy. The coastal Hillary voters are the banking, information sectors of the economy. Now which of the two is independent? Which is dependent?

Right. That's why secession by the heartland would no more be tolerated today than secession was in 1860. The coastal "Elite" are entirely dependent on the heartland for their basic commodities and yet they have no loyalty to the people who dwell there and further, want to displace them with outsiders and can't wait for them to die (even gunning them down in public spaces).

Secession? Hail yeah!

Andrei Martyanov > , Website October 10, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT

@ThreeCranes You make some good points here.

The coastal "Elite" are entirely dependent on the heartland for their basic commodities and yet they have no loyalty to the people who dwell there and further, want to displace them with outsiders and can't wait for them to die (even gunning them down in public spaces).

True. Most of them also have no significant real life skills which matter, bar some hipsters obsessed with organic food–many of them are trying, actually, to grow it and that is a plus. But yes, most people you describe here never spent a day on manufacturing floor, or in the uniform, or anywhere which requires serious labor and uncomfortable existence.

ThreeCranes > , October 10, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov But more, Andrei. All the hydroelectric dams are locate inland, the mineral deposits, the fertile soil and so on. The coastal are to the people of the heartland as an absentee landlord is to his tenant farmers.

Before 1965, virtually every business located in the downtown of cities of under say, 250,000 citizens was locally owned (some exceptions, Sears, Penny's, Montgomery Ward). Now, every business is a franchise whose central office is in New York City et al. The coastal elite, having financialized everything in the American economy worth financializing, now own, via money loaned into existence by the Central Bank, America's small town economies. That this doesn't have to be so is proved by the fact that it wasn't always so.

America was a better place to live before the local economies were destroyed and displaced by the global one. We are currently suffering from a plague like the ones imported from the East during the dark days of the Black Death and for the same reason. We are being exposed to the toxic effects of moving people and goods around the world with no regard for the effect this has on local ecologies–cultural or natural. That this is literally killing us is a matter of indifference to our coastal elites.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website October 10, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT

@ThreeCranes

The coastal elite, having financialized everything in the American economy worth financializing

Agree. But then again, we live in the world where Facebook "capitalization" is several times larger than that of Boeing, which provides half of the world with needed actual high-tech products. B-787 is a marvel. We have Tesla which is one of the most outstanding (together with Musk's "Mars mission") frauds in history. A madhouse. But while agreeing with you in principle, I also have to make some clarifications, I also observed how many, namely from logging industry on the West Coast didn't want to take new opportunities, granted paying less than their logging professions, to turn their life around. The opportunities were there, they just refused. Opportunities were in aerospace, in excellent Air Washington Program (I took advantage of it to get some CNC courses for general horizons expansion) , granted that it required math and more brain-work than usually is required from logging. But no, they just wanted it the way they wanted it. Knowing how logging worked on the West Coast I kinda see why they wanted it back but it will never be back the way it was. Next step for them once it doesn't come back? Well, we have here a massive growth of pot dispensaries, that will take care of the labor force (bitter sarcasm).

Miro23 > , October 11, 2017 at 3:03 am GMT

Catalonia can best find its destiny in reasserting its role as a largely self-governing region -- but within the historic federation of the Spanish kingdom.

One of the best articles ever on Unz, with a great presentation of the historical roots of modern Spain. Maybe it underplays the role of 20th Century leftist internationalism (i.e. Bolshevism light or otherwise) but still , it would correctly see radical international leftism as a new arrival on the scene, mostly burning itself out with the exit of Spanish feudalism .

But, I can think of instances when secession -- that is, the break-up of larger nations or empires -- is not only inadvisable, but positively injurious not only to the whole, but also to the respective seceding parts. The dissolution of the old Austria-Hungarian Empire in 1918, for instance, was not only a tragic mistake geopolitically, but made little sense economically, ethnically or historically.

I'm not so sure about this.

Austria-Hungary, prior to its collapse, wasn't a respectful alliance of largely self-governing regions. There were a lot of other things going on – most notably hopeless race wars focused on Vienna.

Just as an example:

"In the old Austria, nothing could be done without patronage. That's partly explained by the fact that nine million Germans were in fact rulers, in virtue of an unwritten law, of fifty million non-Germans. This German ruling class took strict care that places should always be found for Germans. For them this was the only method of maintaining themselves in this privileged situation. The Balts of German origin behaved in the same way towards the Slav population."

"Hitler's Table Talk". Conversation Nº 109 15th-16th January 1942

and,

"The rise of the Jews in Austria-Hungary may well have been the most sudden , impressive rise of Jews in modern history."

" .all public life was dominated by Jews. The banks, the press, the theater, literature, social organizations, all lay in the hands of the Jews . The aristocracy would have nothing to do with such things . The small number of untitled patrician families imitated the aristocracy; the original upper-middle class had disappeared .. The court, the lower middle class and the Jews gave the city its stamp. And that the Jews, as the most mobile group, kept all the others in continual motion is, on the whole, not surprising."

Albert Lindeman, "Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews"

Andrei Martyanov > , Website October 11, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

@Anonymous The interior has very little population though and would have trouble holding territory. The interior's farmland could be sabotaged and destroyed and its access to major waterways and water traffic would be cut off. The coasts have extensive global trade networks and would effectively lay siege on the interior.

The coasts have extensive global trade networks and would effectively lay siege on the interior.

Actually, it is the other way around. What coasts? If in the East it could be viewed as a somewhat continuous urban chain in the North-East, the West Coast "elites" reside mostly in Seattle, Portland, SF urban areas, which, while large, are in effect the places of compact residence. As such, they are fairly easily isolated, not to mention the fact of undeniable emasculation of their male residents. They can not find often their own ass with their two hands in a brightly lit room, let alone "lay siege" to anything. This is not to speak of the fact that all, without exception, urban centers depend entirely on "interior" for food. As per interior main cities–as latest elections showed, Ohio or Indiana, which are interior and do contain serious urban centers are not "elitists" states. Neither is Texas, which is also a major urban and port state. In other words, it is a very complex picture.

simplyamazed > , October 11, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

Although I agree that this historical overview of Catalonia since the 1200′s is quite good, I still have a few quibbles and one big caveat. First quibble: Catalonia was joined to the kingship of Aragon, but was functionally separate from the State of Aragon and generally left alone by the various kings over the next several centuries. Second quibble: Catalonia rebelled quite regularly since the 1400′s when its neighbours sought to encroach on traditional Catalan rights and prerogatives. It has never been long an easy member of what became the Spanish nation following the reconquest.

My caveat is the part of the history that has been left out. Catalonia existed as a distinct entity or one allied with its (now) French neighbour. Catalonia has had strong ties with its Mediterranean neighbours and with France during its long historical period of development following the fall of Rome in the West. During the existence of El Andelus under caliphate rule and later after various statelets splintered off of the caliphate, Catalonia often allied with the muslim states as well as having strong ties northward. Many of its feudal rulers were descendents of Visigoths who descended out of the decaying Roman Empire and set up rule in many parts of Iberia. This long formative period of Catalan history can still be felt in many Catalan customs and in the Catalan language.

So, is it surprising that a large portion of the people of Catalonia might have a strong independent spirit and outlook. However, I agree that independence in today's context needs more than a vibrant history, language and customs. It needs a strong and functioning administration, government and military to defend itself and its borders. It needs to preserve and protect and grow its economy. It also needs international recognition.

hyperbola > , October 11, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT

That Mythical Pro-Spanish Majority in Catalonia

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/10/mythical-pro-spanish-majority-catalonia/

The media constantly pumps out the lie that there is a silent anti-independence majority in Catalonia, which is merely curiously invisible.

Consider this. The highest turnout ever at an election in Catalonia was the 74.9% in the 2015 Regional Election, with 4,130.196 people casting their vote. At Spanish general elections turnout is even lower, at 69%. A minimum of 25.1% of the population never vote at all. Of that 25% who do not vote, some will be dead, or moved away, but most are probably just not civilly engaged.

The trick of the pro-Spanish lobby is to boycott polls on Independence, and then claim that this minimum 25% of the electorate who never vote at all anyway, are anti-Independence and participating in the boycott. In truth there are absolutely no grounds to attribute the minimum 25% habitual non-voters as anti-independence. Particularly the dead ones.

So in fact the 2,044,038 votes cast in favour of Independence on Sunday, that survived the police and could be counted, already amounted to 49.6% of the highest number of votes ever cast in any election in Catalonia. When you add in the hundreds of thousands of votes confiscated by the police, and the voters who were deterred by the terrible violence, there is no doubt whatsoever that Sunday's referendum would have seen a healthy majority for Independence on any probable turnout figure ..

hyperbola > , October 11, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT

Most participants here will know virtually nothing about Spain, Catalonia, or even successful confederal models in Europe. Long, complicated topics, so I will make only a few short comments here.

1. The present spanish monarchy essentially involved a murderous dictator designating a king. A poisonous contradiction (restoring a monarchy) was mostly accepted to escape from the murderous dictatorship. There are "republicans" who would like to end the monarchy throughout Spain, including Catalonia. The issue of constitutional reform is now on the table and the Spanish would be wise to get rid of such an anachronism. The country has suffered every time that it has had foreigners as kings, starting with the "germans" Carlos I and Carlos II who bled Spaniards for numerous wars in Europe. The present royal family is of French (the Borbons) and German (Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg) ancestry. The grandmother of the present king (Felipe VI) can be seen (together with her brothers) dressed in the uniform of the Hitler Youth in numerous web sites.

2. Cataluña is not the only area of Spain that "rebels" against right-wing, centralized control. Similar sentiments are present (to more or less degree) in Pais Vasco, Galicia, Valencia, Baleares, Canarias, . Spain has a centuries long history of failing to deal with the pluri-national nature of the country and seems to be failing once again.

3. There are models of pluri-national confederations/nations that are exemplary instances of how to deal with such problems. Switzerland is perhaps the best known. The "Eidgenossenschaft" (confederation) of the german-speaking areas dates from about 1250 and initially involved seven independent countries, each of which retained its own sovereignity. The model was soon after copied in the french- and italian-speaking areas of modern Switzerland. The present confederation includes 27 kantons (the federal constitution guarantees that they remain sovereign nations, i.e. in principle can withdraw) and 4 different languages. The Kantons retain power over taxes, education, welfare, citizenship, .. Direct democracy reigns at both the national and kantonal level, i.e. citizens can reject/initiate laws by referendum, including kantonal/national taxation/expenditure.

4. Spain actually has a mixed system in which certain "autonomia" (states – Pais Vasco, Navarra, Aragon) have a status somewhat like Kantons in Switzerland, e.g. a separate status with regard to taxation.

Probably the best thing that Spain could do would be to copy the Swiss model and get rid of the monarchy. Probably even Cataluña could be convinced to join such a model.

AP > , October 11, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT

Only 40% of the eligible voters in Catalonia participated in the recent plebiscite on possible independence; of those around 90% voted "Si." But that means that approximately just 30% of the electorate truly favors independence.

1. The 40% is because the Madrid government interfered with the vote.

2. In the 2016 American election, turnout was 54.7% of whom 46.1% voted from Trump. That's 25.2% of the electorate favoring Trump. In the 2012 election, turnout was 54.9%, 51.1% of whom voted for Obama. That's 28% of the electorate favoring Obama. A higher percentage of Catalonia's electorate favor independence than American electorate favored the last two US presidents.

hyperbola > , October 11, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

@AP Macron in France is even less favored by the electorate. But the mainstream media will never mention that.

The Single Party French State as the Majority of Voters Abstain

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/21/the-single-party-french-state-as-the-majority-of-voters-abstain/

.. Macron's victory was both overwhelming and underwhelming. All records of abstention were broken; for the first time in over a century, a majority of eligible voters stayed away from the polls in the first round of the parliamentary elections, and abstention rose to 57% in the second round. He owes his landslide to less than 20% of registered voters ..

RadicalCenter > , October 11, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT

@ThreeCranes But more, Andrei. All the hydroelectric dams are locate inland, the mineral deposits, the fertile soil and so on. The coastal are to the people of the heartland as an absentee landlord is to his tenant farmers.

Before 1965, virtually every business located in the downtown of cities of under say, 250,000 citizens was locally owned (some exceptions, Sears, Penny's, Montgomery Ward). Now, every business is a franchise whose central office is in New York City et al. The coastal elite, having financialized everything in the American economy worth financializing, now own, via money loaned into existence by the Central Bank, America's small town economies. That this doesn't have to be so is proved by the fact that it wasn't always so.

America was a better place to live before the local economies were destroyed and displaced by the global one. We are currently suffering from a plague like the ones imported from the East during the dark days of the Black Death and for the same reason. We are being exposed to the toxic effects of moving people and goods around the world with no regard for the effect this has on local ecologies--cultural or natural. That this is literally killing us is a matter of indifference to our coastal elites. A cogent analysis by all Three Cranes (Martin, Niles, and Fraser?

Seriously, I would offer a partial counter-argument, but only a partial one. The rest of the country buys enormous quantities of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (the jokes write themselves) from California, right? I assume CA would be glad to keep selling to the rest of the USA, but with the farther-left, more anti-white government that would come to power in an independent CA, who knows. They might elect to sell only to other countries, and China and India can buy up anything CA can produce in that regard.

On the other hand, as California grows ever more over-populated, it further exceeds the carrying capacity of this territory. Among other baleful effects, we see that California droughts become more common, more prolonged, and more severe.

There are increasing battles over agricultural producers' access to the scarce water supplies of this State. Dire results seem almost inevitable as the population is allowed to keep growing without an end in sight.

In fact, the loons who run Cali now -- and the even loonier loons who will run an independent Cali -- will make it a badge of honor to show how many Mexicans they can admit to settle on their land, and how fast. That will intensify the drought and hasten the day when Cali can no longer maintain anything like its current ag output. God help them, and us, when that day comes.

ThreeCranes > , October 11, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov


The coasts have extensive global trade networks and would effectively lay siege on the interior.
Actually, it is the other way around. What coasts? If in the East it could be viewed as a somewhat continuous urban chain in the North-East, the West Coast "elites" reside mostly in Seattle, Portland, SF urban areas, which, while large, are in effect the places of compact residence. As such, they are fairly easily isolated, not to mention the fact of undeniable emasculation of their male residents. They can not find often their own ass with their two hands in a brightly lit room, let alone "lay siege" to anything. This is not to speak of the fact that all, without exception, urban centers depend entirely on "interior" for food. As per interior main cities--as latest elections showed, Ohio or Indiana, which are interior and do contain serious urban centers are not "elitists" states. Neither is Texas, which is also a major urban and port state. In other words, it is a very complex picture. This is going to be a bitter pill for Steve Sailer to swallow, but his beloved California is not the preeminent region in America's economy.

"According to the Brookings Institution, if it stood alone as a country, the Great Lakes economy would be one of the largest economic units on earth (with a $4.5-trillion gross regional product). It contains most of an area urban planners have viewed as an emerging Great Lakes Megalopolis which has an estimated 54 million people."

"If the state were considered separately, it would rank as the sixth largest economy in the world, behind rest of the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that California's GDP was $2.5 trillion in 2015, up 4.1 percent from a year earlier."

Let California go. We don't need them with their mealy, inedible vegetables.

RadicalCenter > , October 11, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT

@Anonymous You make a great point about the prospect of economic blockade, in effect, by coastal independent Cali against the inland portion of the State that presumably remains with the USA.

First of all, the inland and more rural-to-suburban counties must demand to leave Cali before Cali secedes. They could comprise the new U.S. States of, say, East California and North California.

Second, the non-seceding States -- and by extension the USA -- MUST keep territory leading to the coast, and significant frontage on the Pacific Ocean in northern, central, and southern California, for reasons economic and military above all.

If merely the LA and SF metroplexes, broadly construed, secede, leaving the majority of the State's counties to stay in the USA, that might not be so bad for the rest of the USA.

Here is the website of a California political party advocating eventual negotiated independence:

https://californianational.party/

They are waaaaaay too far left for me, but then, (1) that's why they want to leave the USA, and (2) that's why my wife and I would almost certainly have to pick up stakes and leave LA if Cali seceded, because something like the Cali National Party platform would surely garner a BIG supermajority of support in many of Cali's coastal counties.

P.S. But would the rest of the USA have the balls to prohibit all immigration from the new Third World coastal "Republic" of California? That would need to happen for it to benefit (and not continue gradually balkanizing and destroying) the rest of the USA longer-term.

RadicalCenter > , October 11, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Texas may not be nearly as much a home to America-hating elites as LA, SF, NY, and DC, to be sure, but politically it will become part of that coalition seeking to replace and subjugate European-Americans nationwide. As you know, Texas is going Mexican, and its politics are about to change drastically.

In its current size and form, much of Texas even ten years from now cannot be counted as a reliable ally or as a place for Americans to seek refuge from violence, discrimination, etc.

Perhaps Texas, too, is in need of a peaceful, negotiated break-up into smaller, more manageable, more culturally / socially cohesive States. This needn't entail secession, just new U.S. States whose people are allowed the broad autonomy guaranteed them by the Tenth Amendment. (yeah, I know, cue the laugh track)

I often think that simply adhering to our Constitution would greatly dampen the ardor and perceived need for secession. The Constitution called for very limited powers for the federal government, and conversely very broad autonomy for the people of each State to decide almost everything except national monetary and foreign policy. Why would California "need' to secede if they were allowed to have whatever laws they want on abortion, homosexual marriage, universal government-funded or government-provided healthcare, etc.? Why would Texas need to secede if they were allowed to have quite the opposite laws, without interference or threat from the fed gov (including the un-elected legislators known as the federal judiciary).

RadicalCenter > , October 11, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov P.S. There are entire counties in south Texas where the population is almost 100% Mexican. Not just right on the border, either.

This phenomenon of immi-vasion keeps spreading northward while we Americans focus on the REALLY important issues like preventing Russians in Crimea from reuniting with Russia & demanding more "rights" for mentally ill people ("transgenders").

RadicalCenter > , October 11, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT

@hyperbola Most participants here will know virtually nothing about Spain, Catalonia, or even successful confederal models in Europe. Long, complicated topics, so I will make only a few short comments here.

1. The present spanish monarchy essentially involved a murderous dictator designating a king. A poisonous contradiction (restoring a monarchy) was mostly accepted to escape from the murderous dictatorship. There are "republicans" who would like to end the monarchy throughout Spain, including Catalonia. The issue of constitutional reform is now on the table and the Spanish would be wise to get rid of such an anachronism. The country has suffered every time that it has had foreigners as kings, starting with the "germans" Carlos I and Carlos II who bled Spaniards for numerous wars in Europe. The present royal family is of French (the Borbons) and German (Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg) ancestry. The grandmother of the present king (Felipe VI) can be seen (together with her brothers) dressed in the uniform of the Hitler Youth in numerous web sites.

2. Cataluña is not the only area of Spain that "rebels" against right-wing, centralized control. Similar sentiments are present (to more or less degree) in Pais Vasco, Galicia, Valencia, Baleares, Canarias, . Spain has a centuries long history of failing to deal with the pluri-national nature of the country and seems to be failing once again.

3. There are models of pluri-national confederations/nations that are exemplary instances of how to deal with such problems. Switzerland is perhaps the best known. The "Eidgenossenschaft" (confederation) of the german-speaking areas dates from about 1250 and initially involved seven independent countries, each of which retained its own sovereignity. The model was soon after copied in the french- and italian-speaking areas of modern Switzerland. The present confederation includes 27 kantons (the federal constitution guarantees that they remain sovereign nations, i.e. in principle can withdraw) and 4 different languages. The Kantons retain power over taxes, education, welfare, citizenship, .. Direct democracy reigns at both the national and kantonal level, i.e. citizens can reject/initiate laws by referendum, including kantonal/national taxation/expenditure.

4. Spain actually has a mixed system in which certain "autonomia" (states – Pais Vasco, Navarra, Aragon) have a status somewhat like Kantons in Switzerland, e.g. a separate status with regard to taxation.

Probably the best thing that Spain could do would be to copy the Swiss model and get rid of the monarchy. Probably even Cataluña could be convinced to join such a model. I need to learn more about the structure of the government in Spain, and its recent history. Your comment was VERY helpful, thank you

RadicalCenter > , October 11, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

@AP And imagine if the US had a two-round system for our presidential elections, i.e., top two vote-getters from the first round advancing to a run-off.

We could have seen MILLIONS more people voting Green or Libertarian instead of Trump or Clinton. That system would tell us the real popularity of these "major-party" candidates, which is pitifully low when people feel that they have a realistic alternative and a way to express it through their vote.

Trump and Clinton probably wouldn't get even 30% of the votes each in such a first round. Even farther below the support that Catalonian voters just showed for independence.

Go Catalonia!
Go Scotland!

And while we're at it, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, LA and San Francisco, Portland and Seattle."

Matra > , October 12, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT

@hyperbola I don't consider Spain v Catalonia any of my business so I'm neutral but Murray seems to be an ideologue more interested in narrative than truth. He even claims today's Spaniards had Muslim ancestors, a typical leftist talking point. He's not very credible.

Miro23 > , October 12, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT

@RadicalCenter

The Constitution called for very limited powers for the federal government, and conversely very broad autonomy for the people of each State to decide almost everything except national monetary and foreign policy.

Very broad autonomy to decide means that they would have to use this autonomy – which is a shockingly different mindset from what exists at present. Each citizen would have to be personally involved in evaluating issues, attending meetings and voting – and the only way I could see this happening is if Civic Democratic participation was compulsory.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw

My assumption is that most citizens would be too busy or too lazy and disinterested to participate, so it would have to be mandatory, with a penalty of loss of voting rights or even loss of citizenship. The idea is that you are only a citizen as long as you act as a citizen, and it would almost certainly need to combine with a period of compulsory military service for all male citizens to concretize the idea.

the people of each State to decide almost everything except national monetary and foreign policy.

Monetary and foreign policy would have to come back to the states as well. Foreign policy needs to be firmly rooted in full participative state decision making, and FED/Treasury national level credit creation completely halted (we know where that money goes).

The Alarmist > , October 12, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT

With respect to Northern California, the author misses the obvious precedent of West Virginia, which in 1861 was carved out of the western parts of a recently seceded Virginia.

The Alarmist > , October 12, 2017 at 5:21 am GMT

@RadicalCenter Then there's the issue of what to do with the launch facilities of Vandenberg AFB. Will this relationship be like Russia leasing Baikonur from Khazakhstan? Do we have any reason to fear a nuclear armed Southern California with Ballistic Missile Technology? Should Mr. Trump start a pre-emptive bombing campaign now?

Miro23 > , October 12, 2017 at 5:41 am GMT

@Miro23

The idea is that you are only a citizen as long as you act as a citizen, and it would almost certainly need to combine with a period of compulsory military service for all male citizens to concretize the idea.

Also, out-of-state military service would help Americans to get to know each other (Californians to Ohio, Texans to California, Alabamians to Washington State, New Yorkers to Montana or Hawaiians to Alaska).

szopen > , October 12, 2017 at 6:04 am GMT

The dissolution of the old Austria-Hungarian Empire in 1918, for instance, was not only a tragic mistake geopolitically, but made little sense economically, ethnically or historically.

Of course the dissolution of A-H was necessary and it's further existance would be absurd – it woudl also destablize the Europe, because of constant frictions within it. Historically, Poland, Czechia etc were historic nations, who were unwilling to be ruled by Austrians (even though in 1914 Austrians were the best from the three partitioners). I don't know why double standards with respect to southern states and my own country. Don't Poles deserve the same right to live in their own country as southerners?

Hans Vogel > , October 12, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT

Interesting point of view, though I beg to differ on a point or two.

It would seem that your presentation of Catalan claims to independence lacks a few key observations. The union of Spanish crowns actually dates from the late 15th century with the marriage of Queen Isabel of Castile to King Ferdinand of Aragon. While they each continued to rule over their own kingdom, they did coordinate some key policies. Their daughter Juana "la Loca" was the first to rule over the two kingdoms together. "Spain" became a Habsburg land when Juana's son Charles I succeeded in 1517. Spain continued to be ruled by Habsburgs until 1700, when Charles II died without leaving an heir. The heir apparent was Louis XIV's grandson Philip, a Bourbon. However, the Netherlands and England did not want him to succeed and therefore they recognized Charles VI, son of the German Emperor, as King of Spain. In the ensuing War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1713/4), the Dutch and English conquered Gibraltar and occupied Catalonia. In the end they had to accept that while Catalonia supported Charles VI, most of the rest of Spain preferred Philip. Once firmly on the throne, the new monarch did not exactly favor Catalonia, to put it mildly. However the seeds for Catalan separatism had now been planted in fertile soil.

As for the point of what constitutes a nation, the answer is simple: anything at all, whether geographic location, language (which really is a "dialect with an army"), wealth, economic specialization, religion (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak the same language, but Serbs are Orthodox, Croats Roman Catholic and Bosniaks Mohammedan), etc.

Basically, the key elements for constituing a nation are money, time, perseverance, violence and propaganda.

pyrrhus > , October 12, 2017 at 7:46 am GMT

The tyrannical actions of Madrid against a referendum that probably would have failed otherwise, fully justify secession (at least as a threat) at this point. Another point, misunderstood by the author, is that the Catalan language is the primary language spoken in Barcelona and the region around it, and is the official language of the universities and Government. The Basques, who are the most creative group in Spain, also are chafing under Madrid's rule .

Jo King > , October 12, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT

"1258. Thus, for eight centuries the region has been united with Spain".
This is completly false, Spain simply HAS NOT 8 centuries of existence, learn History first, wright after. americans and History, what a difficult relation.

Verymuchalive > , October 12, 2017 at 9:06 am GMT

@Miro23 Yes, an excellent article from Prof Cathey.
And you are right, Miro23, about the role of C 2oth "leftist internationalism" which continues to envelope Barcelona. People living very bourgeois lifestyles would come up to you and spout often very extreme left wing opinions, which you knew they had no intention of following in real life.
My brother, a Post Grad in Spanish History, had to teach in Barcelona for a year as part of his course. I visited him several times. He came to despise Barcelona and its phony Toytown anarchists and other leftists. Neither he nor I have ever felt the desire to return.
Without these Toytown leftists, I doubt there would have been a Referendum at all. Puigdemont needed their support and this was his bribe.

animalogic > , October 12, 2017 at 9:43 am GMT

@hyperbola You are spot on hyperbola. The author here tries to "stick his thumb on the scale"
" Only 40% of the eligible voters in Catalonia participated in the recent plebiscite on possible independence; of those around 90% voted "Si."[my emphasis]
His conclusion ? The plebiscite/referendum lacks popular validity.
Absent, of course, is Madrid's direct sabotage of the vote: ballots "stolen", & voters obstructed from voting (sometimes violently, also psychologically).
Nor, if memory serves, is the 40% that much less than the voter turn- out for some other countries, such as the US.

Alfred > , October 12, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

The story that the WWI is the direct result of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke is an example of Fake News at its best.

In reality, the English planned to take down Germany long before WWI. The Entente Cordiale with France had secret clauses that neither the British parliament nor most of the Cabinet knew anything about.

Winston Churchill switched from Conservatives to Liberals in order to get the Liberals to start the war. As First Lord of the Admirality, he agreed with the French that their fleet should stay in the Mediterranean and the Royal Navy would defend their Atlantic coast.

The British public were in favour of the Prussians and against the Russians and French. All of that was changed in a concerted propaganda campaign that went on for more than 10 years.

Belgium was not a neutral country – the main pretext for getting the UK into the war – as it planned with the British the details of how a large British expeditionary force should deploy into Belgium to fight the Germans – long before 1914.

Lastly, Germany was the last country to mobilise. So much for "German Aggression".

Gene Tuttle > , October 12, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT

Excellent summary of the issue!

I spent much of September in Spain, often trying to reconcile my conviction that Catalan separatists were wrongheaded provincials heading down a dangerous path with my past sympathies for some secessionist movements elsewhere. This article, with its compact history review, was helpful in describing some of the nuances differentiating diverse separatist movements. It shows that different conclusions about which ones are justified need not reflect a double standard.

animalogic > , October 12, 2017 at 10:29 am GMT

@Matra "I'm neutral but Murray seems to be an ideologue . He even claims today's Spaniards had Muslim ancestors, a typical leftist talking point."
Maybe he is an ideologue, but you certainly are.
Although I guess the practice of history is itself typically leftist.
Imagine claiming that modern Spaniards may have Muslim ancestors when Muslim's controlled much of Spain (in ever decreasing area) from 711AD to 1492. I wonder whether a few drops or more of Muslim/Arabic blood my snuck into all that European blood over the course of 100′s of years ?

szopen > , October 12, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT

@Hans Vogel

Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak the same language

It's more complicated than that. There are several dialects in ex-Yugoslavia, crossing through the ethnic lines. The are three dialects in Croatia, and I was told that one (official language) is almost same as Serbian, while two others are as different as almost a different language. If some Croat is here, he could confirm.

Kirt > , October 12, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

I tend to support popular secessionist movements reflexively, since the ability to opt out is the only thing that gives real meaning to consent of the governed. But if Spain is determined to drown this attempt in a Lincolnesque bloodbath, the Catalans better ask themselves if it is really worth it. Some of us onlookers will wish them well, most won't care, but no one will ride to their rescue.

Jake > , October 12, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT

The brief synopsis of Spanish history is helpful, and Catalonia is the issue. But the article opens with California, which is the primary interest of almost all of us in terms of secession. Not necessarily CA, but the USA Empire.

Yes, if California secedes, its many 'conservative' peoples and their towns and counties will be even more at the mercy of the ultra looney Left of Hollywood and San Francisco. But that is not a deal-breaker of the idea. The secession of 13 colonies of the British Empire meant that in each of those 13 colonies sizable numbers of pro-Empire people were made very unhappy at losing their concept of nation.

The fact is that there will be no classic secession within the current USA Empire, no state or 2 or 13 will leave with the rest remaining as the USA. If anything comes, it will be a divorce. The entire compact will be abolished, with property divided.

And yes, that splitting of states will mean that we will see movements out of one into the other. We will see more conservative people living in, say, CA or MA or MN, moving to NC or MO or TX. We will see Liberals living in VA and FL and AR fleeing to NY or Chicago or Portland or Seattle.

Wally > , October 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT

@ThreeCranes 'Elite' states secede? Could be interesting.

- 45% of California, for example, is Federal land.

- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable & dumb illegal immigrants.

- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax revenues):

aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg

- Not to mention the numerous counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples Republic of California'.

- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.

[Oct 11, 2017] Nuclear buildup amd "moron" story are both based on anonymous sources. In case they are false rumors generated specifically to discredit Trump perpetrators will probably remain unpunished by David A. Graham

Again anonymous leak sped by all neoliberal MSM. According to Trump Blasts 'Disgusting' Media as He Threatens NBC Licenses "It's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write and people should want to look into it," Trump told reporters as he met at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
President Trump says he "never discussed" increasing nuclear arsenal.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

Aides have doubted prior presidents' wisdom, health, or sobriety, but never have so many insiders treated the commander-in-chief like a child.

As every toddler knows, bigger is better, whether that's two scoops of ice cream ( versus one for everyone else ), a border wall, or a nuclear arsenal.

And that was President Trump's reaction during a July meeting with military and national-security leaders about the nuclear arsenal, too, according to NBC News . In total, he sought a tenfold increase in the U.S. store of nukes:

Trump's comments, the officials said, came in response to a briefing slide he was shown that charted the steady reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons since the late 1960s. Trump indicated he wanted a bigger stockpile, not the bottom position on that downward-sloping curve.

Trump's aides were taken aback: "Officials briefly explained the legal and practical impediments to a nuclear buildup and how the current military posture is stronger than it was at the height of the buildup." Officials said there's currently no plan for a massive buildup.

If Trump's approach to nukes and ice cream alike is childlike, this story is the latest example of how Trump's aides treat him like a child too. In the case of the nuclear weapons, advisers seem to have taken Trump's outburst as bizarre and dangerous and quietly moved to suppress it. In the past, aides have disagreed with presidents' judgments as unwise, worried that their drinking would on occasion render them dangerous, or expressed concern that they were suffering from senility. Nor is it uncommon for a politician's critics to describe him as childish and unprepared -- decades before Lloyd Bentsen slammed Dan Quayle as "no Jack Kennedy," Richard Nixon warned that Jack Kennedy was not prepared for the presidency.

What is different in the Trump administration is that it's the president's own loyalists who view, speak about, and treat him as a child.

This is apparent in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's description of the president, following this meeting, as a " moron " -- suggesting that Trump is simply not cognitively or emotionally up to the job. And this week has seen several other examples.

There is of course Senator Bob Corker's remark that the White House functions as "an adult day care" and his follow-up to The New York Times : "He doesn't realize that, you know, that we could be heading towards World War III with the kinds of comments that he's making."

Corker also complained, like a weary parent, "I don't know why the president tweets out things that are not true. You know he does it, everyone knows he does it, but he does."

Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated he does not trust Trump to keep America safe, saying that Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and Chief of Staff John Kelly "are those people that help separate our country from chaos."

[Oct 10, 2017] OKeefe Strikes Again, Catches NYT Editors On Hidden Camera Targeting Trumps Businesses, His Dumb Fk Of A Son

See also Project Veritas Video On New York Times The Daily Caller
Notable quotes:
"... "I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric... ..."
"... "Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to." ..."
"... When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do." ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting mainstream media bias, James O'Keefe has just dropped a new undercover video which takes direct aim at the New York Times' Audience Strategy Editor, Nick Dudich, who admits repeatedly to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things, damage President Trump's businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation.

Here is a brief intro from Project Veritas :

While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's why I'm here."

Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."

Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:

"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...

"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."

Is @nicholasdudich an isolated incident, or does the #NYTimes employ a culture of bias, in direct conflict with their ethical handbook? pic.twitter.com/oxAenS7aob

-- Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) October 10, 2017

To our complete 'shock', O'Keefe also learned the Dudich worked for Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign and Obama's campaign in both 2008 and 2012...

In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:

"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do video ... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."

He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."

Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn't going to change."

Exactly what kind of people does @nytimes allow to be a video gatekeeper? #AmericanPravda #NYTimes #NYT pic.twitter.com/6uGVsRFpc7

-- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 10, 2017

Bizarrely, Dudich also claims to have joined the Antifa movement as an undercover agent for the FBI...a request which he originally said came from his godfather, James Comey, even though he subsequently retracted that statement.

Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa. "Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not." "How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if they can keep me on."

tmosley -> Blank Reg , Oct 10, 2017 12:41 PM

One wonders if this qualifies as sedition. Imagine if someone had done something like this to a previous president. If some group was on record trying to bankrupt Washington's Mt Vernon, or Teddy Roosevelt's family members, with the full intent of subverting the government.

JimmyJones -> TheDude1224 , Oct 10, 2017 12:50 PM

So he said he was working as an informant for the FBI and joined ANTIFA, was that a lie? What type of a small minded fool lies about being a "special agent" working for the Gov't? Well this type. Fox news "fair and balanced" , NY Times "Fairly Biased". But don't worry the Liberals will still view the NY Times as the Paper of Record. Looney

hedgeless_horseman -> JimmyJones , Oct 10, 2017 12:52 PM Omen IV -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 10, 2017 1:51 PM

so is Comey the GodFather of the guy in the 32nd floor of the Mandalay and did he have him planted? I would easily easily believe that

Chupacabra-322 -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 10, 2017 1:59 PM

Smith Mundt Act. The Presstitute appendage's of the Criminal Deep State can Propagandandize / Gas Light the masses with Impunity. And, in their sick, twisted, perverted minds, it's all Legal.

JRobby -> JimmyJones , Oct 10, 2017 1:24 PM

Yes, this is pretty much "bombshell" category considering Dudich's position, his title, a fancy word play on Propagandist. MSM will never mention it. Not one aspect of it.

Oldwood -> Cognitive Dissonance , Oct 10, 2017 1:39 PM

But would be worrying if it were the French rather than the Russians "interfering" with our sainted elections?

AS is seen, it is not corruption that is perceived as the problem, it is WHO's corruption that is the problem.

Who owns the NYTs and does anyone care? Carlos Slim? Why would we care if the owner is the resident of one of the most violent and corrupt countries in the world, one emmersed in a socialist bankrupt ideology for a hundred years?

I do find it strange that we started the last century so aware and afraid of the socialist/communist virus, but as was predicted, we have embraced every last tenet of it's ideology under the mantle of "progressivism". Note that communism is no longer a threat, just another alternative increasingly openly embraced by the media and colleges....just like they said they would.

And it is TRUMP who is now the threat, not communist collectivist dependency. Interesting.

Snípéir_Ag_Obair -> tmosley , Oct 10, 2017 2:42 PM

if it is sedition it looks like we can all count on Sessioms to not do a fucking thing about it. Why haven't Comey, Lynch, Clinton, Rice and Obama been indicted? Or lying-under-oath master Clapper?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sedition

I think you can certainly argue that the Dem/Spook/Media effort to create the Russiahoax stuff, all as the feds never even examined the dnc server, or interviewed Assange, is quite literally conspiracy and sedition.

Sessions isn't indicting, nor being directed to, nor fired. It's a big club...

Endgame Napoleon -> SILVERGEDDON , Oct 10, 2017 1:06 PM

What about the lack of professional decorum and a paper that regards itself as a premier publication? All of these connected-up people at the top expect us to regard them as -- unquestionably -- deserving of high positions, but they feel free to let loose with unprofessional behavior any time they want if it serves 1) their own careerist means or 2) the careerist goals of their cronies.

Doom Porn Star , Oct 10, 2017 12:22 PM

"Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.

"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."

"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "

Doesn't he make it sound a lot like he's just another 'made' chucklehead in the Mob?

That's because he is.

Felix da Kat , Oct 10, 2017 1:26 PM

Dudich is a poster child for the new millenial way of thinking. In their view lying is perfectly okay so long as it serves one's arch-purpose. In this case it is to prevent Trump's agenda and his 2020 bid (yet to be announced) for re-election. The tactic has been adopted by many of the NYTimes reporters. It is the same with the other major media outlets (not Fox/WSJ so much). For instance, if you write a comment in the WaPo online, if it does not conform to their liberal agenda, it gets deleted and that is dishonest (mine were deleted several times. I have since banished them). The media is very devious in how it is attempting to take over political contol of America. They are a shameless and crooked bunch, making it very difficult to fight back. The real revolution in America begins when the true conservative soul of America says, "No more". Until that happens, further social decay will be the norm.

Aireannpure , Oct 10, 2017 2:31 PM

Too damn many English majors with serious emotional problems. Get Science and Engineering background folks in there and all this non sense would end. This kid is a punk and worthy of a good daddy belt beat down. Who raised this crap?

[Oct 10, 2017] Izreal gets 77 percent of oil from Kurdistan. No wonder Israel is making ties to Kurdistan and bucking the central government of Iraq

Notable quotes:
"... The Kurdish leadership is being very short-sighted – no one is going to back them if they get attacked by those three parties. Is the US going to tango with a NATO member? But it could just be that their army gets trounced in the field after putting up a solid resistance and they are able to use that to get reassurances from those various states that Kurds will have a better seat at their respective national assemblies. I certainly don't know the future, but it just seems like the current trajectory is bad. ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Talha, October 10, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Talha,

Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil at comment #28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybIee-u7qnY

War for Oil? (((Whose oil?))) Wow – thanks RobinG! I actually had no clue about that angle!!!

This article backs that up – 77% – that is massive!

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Israel-importing-77-percent-of-its-oil-from-Iraqi-Kurdistan-report-says-413056

No wonder Israel is making ties to Kurdistan and bucking the central government of Iraq. If the central govt was to assert control, those numbers would change fairly quickly.

And – damn – Kushner's in on this stuff (it's amazing what that guy is up to in a completely unofficial capacity): http://al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2017/04/us-politics-iraq-kushner-diplomacy.html

The Kurdish leadership is setting themselves up for disaster.

Peace.

Talha, October 10, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

@iffen

What's going to happen when "the Iranians" attack the Kurds?

Not sure if that'll happen – there's still time to prevent that from taking place. But if it does, it'll likely come from three sides; Turks, Persians and Arabs – since a new Kurdish territory is going to affect the territorial integrity of each one of those existing states.

Uncle Sam to the rescue?

The guy who spilled the milk comes back to spill some more – no thanks. Certainly Israel isn't going to lift a finger – maybe they'll give the Kurdish leadership exile status in Haifa or something for being good pets.

The Kurdish leadership is being very short-sighted – no one is going to back them if they get attacked by those three parties. Is the US going to tango with a NATO member? But it could just be that their army gets trounced in the field after putting up a solid resistance and they are able to use that to get reassurances from those various states that Kurds will have a better seat at their respective national assemblies. I certainly don't know the future, but it just seems like the current trajectory is bad.

Peace.

iffen, October 10, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

@Talha

What's going to happen when "the Iranians" attack the Kurds?

Where there is war, a cause can be found.

Talha, October 10, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

@RobinG Hey RobinG,

I've had some good exchanges with iffen – though rarely on the subject of Israel. We agree to disagree. But others might gain benefit in a serious reply that brings together some things they haven't thought about.

I think what the Kurdish leadership is doing is deplorable and will not lead to anything good – but unfortunately it seems much of their desire for a Kurdistan is being backed by a lot of their population. That being said; I do not want any more Muslim blood (or anybody else's) being shed by other Muslims in that region.

This fratricide has to end: "The believers are but a single brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your brethren; and fear God, that you may receive Mercy." (49:10)

Peace.

[Oct 10, 2017] National balkanization is very problematic in the context of bringing substantially enhanced economic rights and opportunities to a broad spectrum of the oppressed in a nation's population is consistent with recent history elsewhere especially the former Yugoslavia

Notable quotes:
"... "Behind the assault on the working class in Spain is a European and indeed global crisis of capitalism. After a quarter century of social cuts and escalating imperialist wars across the Middle East since the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, European capitalism is in an advanced state of collapse. Particularly since the 2008 Wall Street crash and global economic crisis, the ruling elites in Europe and America all sought to strengthen the military and police agencies, while imposing devastating austerity on the workers. ..."
"... Spanish capitalism is economically moribund. Spain's unemployment rate stands at a massive 17.8 percent and at 38.6 percent for the under-25s. One in four unemployed have not had a job for at least four years. 2.5 million workers came off the unemployment rolls not because they found jobs in Spain, but because they emigrated to find work elsewhere." ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , September 30, 2017 at 11:40 am

Profoundly illuminating analysis of the Catalonia situation the observation that national balkanization is very problematic in the context of bringing substantially enhanced economic rights and opportunities to a broad spectrum of the oppressed in a nation's population is consistent with recent history elsewhere, e.g the former Yugoslavia.

"Behind the assault on the working class in Spain is a European and indeed global crisis of capitalism. After a quarter century of social cuts and escalating imperialist wars across the Middle East since the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, European capitalism is in an advanced state of collapse. Particularly since the 2008 Wall Street crash and global economic crisis, the ruling elites in Europe and America all sought to strengthen the military and police agencies, while imposing devastating austerity on the workers.

This left Spain -- like Greece, Portugal, Italy, and much of Eastern Europe -- in ruins. Spanish capitalism is economically moribund. Spain's unemployment rate stands at a massive 17.8 percent and at 38.6 percent for the under-25s. One in four unemployed have not had a job for at least four years. 2.5 million workers came off the unemployment rolls not because they found jobs in Spain, but because they emigrated to find work elsewhere."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/30/cata-s30.html

Evgeny , September 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm
Just read Anatoly Wasserman's take (in Russian):

https://www.nalin.ru/kak-vlast-ispanii-dobivaetsya-otdeleniya-katalonii-6000

He makes a point that by banning the referendum, the Spanish Government unwittingly promotes the cause for independence of Catalonia. Since the referendum is deemed to be illegal, the only ones to attend it would be pro-independence-minded people, which would result in the high percentage of vote for the independence. Consequently, pro-independence leaders would be able to capitalize on that result by claiming that it reflects the will of the people (despite the low voter turnout).

[Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.

Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress members in an October 2, 2002 report showing "there was no cause for war."

Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.

Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home."

Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich asks. He answers as follows:

This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on a path toward destruction.

Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

Watch Kucinich's complete interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3n5w1xYmV8A

Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

Highly recommended!
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.

The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators explained, and there was still work to be done.

Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."

Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.

The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.

This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence.

It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States (1921):

The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.

One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.

The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."

No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.

Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.

There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall").

These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.

The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:

Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.

Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch is the Duty of a Good Officer.

Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective staffs, would do well to heed those words.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).

[Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Autopilot Wars Sixteen Years, But Who's Counting?

Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.

Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent week:

  • September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • Iraqi Security Forces begin Hawijah offensive
  • September 21 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 22 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 23 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • Operation Inherent Resolve Casualty
  • September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq

Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field, journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties, for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that put things in a broader perspective.

But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.

Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not that big a deal.

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.

Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?

Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable, like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on television.

Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the more speculative.

Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:

1. U.S. casualty rates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't counted).

2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later, Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that connection.

On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation to "support the troops" in the narrowest imaginable terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense. Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.

4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats, notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses two stone tablets after all.

5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy. Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading displaces serious thought.

6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert La Follette or J. William Fulbright , who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not, it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours, be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win? Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then, slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.

7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well. Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously. Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp, getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending them almost entirely escapes notice.

8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in the armed forces, tweeting that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and pushed back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda, the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from Ranger School or command Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History .

Dan Hayes > , October 9, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing wars.

Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the Congress!

BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!

Carlton Meyer > , Website October 9, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.

How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore explained:

Miro23 > , October 9, 2017 at 6:52 am GMT

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.

Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.

So who are Mr & Mrs Indifferent, the emblems of contemporary America? https://www.yahoo.com/news/29-couples-boudoir-photos-almost-172445904.html ?.tsrc=fauxdal – Thanks to Priss

Backwoods Bob > , October 9, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT

Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.

So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money for campaign treasuries.

Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. – but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.

The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is taken on seriously.

The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.

So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.

Robert Magill > , October 9, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.

He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else. But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions they witness.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

[Oct 09, 2017] Trump Says Fake NBC Is Run The Daily Caller

Oct 09, 2017 | dailycaller.com

A new report indicates that President Trump, aggravated by NBC's reporting, has taken to calling the network "fake" and "run by morons."

The Daily Beast reported Monday that according to a White House official, Trump thinks NBC is "run by morons," and that "Trump regularly complains during the day and evenings about NBC as 'fake' and out to 'get' him in the 'same way he [recently] did with CNN.'"

Trump has previously had tensions with CNN, once tweeting out a fake edited WWE gif of Trump tackling a man with a CNN logo for a head.

CNN responded to this by tracking down the alleged creator of the gif and behaving towards him in a way some considered "blackmail." (RELATED: 'Extremely Unethical' -- CNN Draws Backlash After Threatening To ID Reddit User Behind Trump's WWE Video)

President Trump has had problems with NBC News since they reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called him a "moron," possibly a "f**king moron."

Trump hit back against the reports, but Tillerson did not specifically deny saying that about Trump. (RELATED: REPORT: Rex Tillerson 'F***ing Hates' Nikki Haley)

[Oct 09, 2017] Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact by Aaron Maté

Oct 06, 2017 | www.thenation.com

From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence.

Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence report "uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet," The Atlantic observed that "it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions." Noting the "absence of any proof" and "hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack," The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community's message "essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" That remains the case today.

The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that "they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Well-placed critics of Trump -- including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein -- concur to date.

Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place. Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that "in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss." Instead, one source recounted, aides were ordered "to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way." Within 24 hours of Clinton's concession speech, top officials gathered "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements of state power that oppose Trump's call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that front. The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric -- by all indications, a ruse -- alarmed foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller, which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his improbable victory.

These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article's content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language -- likely, suspected, apparent -- appears next to "Russians" to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative. One was news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. "I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Sater wrote, believing that voters would be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States' "most difficult adversary." The New York Times describes the outcome:

There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.

Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump's lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.

The revelation of Sater's e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Goldstone's e-mail was more fruitful than Sater's in that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes. Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as " a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter " who has " launched a host of crudely named websites -- including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com to attack a former business partner." Meanwhile, Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.

[Oct 09, 2017] If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, Or New England - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Our masters then ..."
"... Were still, at least, our countrymen. ..."
"... How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland , Chicago Tribune, ..."
"... coup d'état ..."
"... Men of 1916 had much in common with Bolsheviks | But October Revolution and Easter Rising had radically diverging ideologies , ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... People who are impoverished proclaim their allegiance to their community, because they are looking for help . Hence nationalism and especially religion. ..."
"... I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL. ..."
"... I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades. ..."
"... "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

Nationalism isn't hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don't understand them.

It is of course the case that our co-ethnics may be crazy beasts -- North Korea 's a nation ; Khmer Rouge Cambodia was a nation -- while the foreigners in that distant city might be benign and wise , or at any rate not life-threatening. The Middle East under the Ottoman Empire was not an exemplar of peace and justice, but it doesn't compare badly with today's Middle East.

The great British national conservative Enoch Powell, who fifty years ago gave those eloquent warnings about the evils of mass immigration, once said that if Britain were at war he would fight for Britain , even if it was a communist dictatorship.

The Greek poet in Byron's Don Juan , living under the Ottoman Turks , likewise looked back to the Greek tyrants of antiquity and sighed :

Our masters then

Were still, at least, our countrymen.

I'm basically on the same page with these nationalists, but with reservations. When the Vietnamese army put an end to the Khmer Rouge government by invading Cambodia, most Cambodians hailed them as liberators. Perhaps I would have, too; perhaps even Enoch Powell would have.

So there are qualifications to be made about nationalism, especially small-country nationalism or sub-nationalism. You're not drawing from a big pool of political talent there. I have mixed occasionally with Scottish and Welsh nationalists; let's just say I wasn't impressed.

Sub-nationalism like Catalonia's is also in contradiction to nationalism proper. Who's the truer nationalist: the Spanish citizen who would fight and die for Spain, or the Catalan separatist who feels the same way about his province?

Here you're in the zone of differences that can only finally be decided by force of arms.

You don't have to recall horrors like Cambodia or North Korea to develop some caution about nationalism. Growing up in mid-20th-century England, we had an instance of passionate nationalism -- or sub-nationalism, depending on your point of view -- right on our doorstep . That was of course Ireland.

The Irish had been struggling for centuries to attain self-government. In 1921, after some revolutionary violence , they got autonomy ; then in 1937, full independence.

Irish nationalism was a peculiar thing, though. The Irish had the nationalist impulse , all right: they wanted to be ruled by their own people, not by foreigners. Yet they also had strong trans -nationalist sentiments by virtue of being devout adherents of Roman Catholic Christianity -- a trans-nationalist enterprise if ever there was one.

Having won their independence, the Irish signed on to every trans-national organization that came along. When I took my wife on a tour of the United Nations headquarters in 1987, our tour guide was an Irishman, and we heard a lot of Irish accents around the building.

Likewise with the European Union, on which the Irish are very keen. The sour joke in Britain thirty years ago was that having fought eight hundred years for their independence , the Irish had then sold it for a package of EU agricultural subsidies.

That's not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland , Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish ; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay.

For this the heroes of 1916 faced the firing squads?

You may say that the right to national independence includes the right to national suicide. I suppose it does. Still, as a fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's observation that "Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities," I lament the transformation of Ireland, the Land of Saints and Scholars, into an airport departure lounge -- with the rest of Britain not far behind, indeed in some respects ahead .

"What was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide." Hearing that now we Americans of course think of the secession talk that seems to be getting more and more common on the blogs, including very smart and sensible ones like the Audacious Epigone .

If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?

All right; history has its ebbs and flows, to be sure, and to stand athwart them crying "Stop!" is most likely futile. As a conservative, though, I rather strongly favor leaving the big old nations as they are, absent some obvious and pressing need to break them up.

So without knowing much about Catalonia or its independence movement, I'll register myself as guardedly skeptical, on general grounds. America for Americans; Spain for Spaniards; nationalism over trans-nationalism and sub-nationalism both .

Last week I wrote about the coming centenary of the Bolshevik coup d'état in Russia. At the New York Times they're already starting to hang out the bunting.

The tension between nationalism and imperialism was a factor in Lenin's revolution. Tsarist Russia was an empire; it included numerous non-Russian nationalities. What plan did the Bolsheviks have for them?

Irish historian Frank Armstrong had a thoughtful op-ed on this in Wednesday's Irish Times , contrasting the Bolshevik coup of 1917 with the Easter Rising in Ireland the previous year.[ Men of 1916 had much in common with Bolsheviks | But October Revolution and Easter Rising had radically diverging ideologies , October 5, 2017] . He points out the tension among Bolsheviks, notably Stalin, between, on the one hand, the orthodox Marxist line that "the proletariat has no homeland" and nationalism is a reactionary bourgeois impulse, and on the other hand, admiration for revolutionary violence like that practiced by the Irish rebels.

Armstrong doesn't go anywhere much with his op-ed, but it's a useful reminder that nationalists and trans-nationalists can find themselves thinking the same thoughts.

Here's where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the old Comintern, the Communist International.

We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale .

email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013 .

Randal > , October 7, 2017 at 11:15 am GMT

A good discussion of a complex topic. Touches on conservatism versus radicalism as well, which I think affects whether one is likely to support sub-nationalism against an established nation, even one's own.

Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus "citizenist" (to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be "racist".

I noted recently that there is an interesting contrast between the British government's concession, in the case of Scotland, to the sub-nation of the inherent right to unilateral independence based merely on a majority of the sub-nation's population supporting it, and Spain's adherence to the opposite (and much more widespread) principle that secession is a matter for the nation as a whole, or simply treasonous sedition.

Someone has pointed to Quebec as another case where the point was conceded to the popular will of the sub-nation, and the whole process of the British withdrawal from colonial empire could be viewed as being the same (although there was a deal of US coercion and implicit threats of secessionist violence involved, along with the basic fact that thanks to WW1 & WW2 the British elites knew they lacked the strength to hold onto their colonies).

Clearly the constitutional positions of Scotland and of Catalonia are very different, but I think the governments of both Spain and Britain could have found ways to rationalise making the opposite choice to the one they took, if they had wanted to. Perhaps it comes down to the British government being confident they would win a referendum, but the Spanish government fearing they would not.

Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften > , October 7, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

"If Catalonia, why not California, Texas, or New England?" Don't you know what happened to the South's attempt to secede! Do some homework, writer.

The Scalpel > , Website October 7, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT

It seems to me you are countering the "What was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide," philosophy with one of "This far but no farther." You even recognize that your point of view cannot prevail but prefer it anyway. Well here's to you Don Quixote! May separaratism never come to La Mancha.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 7, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

Death is the inevitable end of any civilization. If not now, then when the sun gives way. There is no escape.

Anatoly Karlin > , Website October 7, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT

I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.

But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the rise of the great gunpowder empires.

And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism, can this even be stopped?

Randal > , October 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small (i.e. militarily weak) states.

But is there any reason to expect it necessarily to continue, given that it appears to be an aggregate function of a number of different processes, some of which are no longer in force, some of which are countervailing and might well become more dominant in future?

It certainly isn't just a function of the world becoming more peaceful and therefore smaller states being more viable – after all the process you describe began before the two world wars. The breakup of the big continental European empires is a different process from the later breakup of the colonial overseas empires, which again is a different process from the collapse of the Soviet empire or of Yugoslavia. They all have in common that they represent the loss of central authority over sub-nations, but they all result from different causes.

Then you have the much vaunted general loss of real sovereignty in the modern globalised world. Many of the newly "independent" entities probably have less freedom of action than many vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. And you have the rise of the EU. How genuinely sovereign will the constituent nations be as the EU develops further towards a United States of Europe?

For all the effort expended, there are few real examples of the long established nations of Europe fragmenting other than as the result of military defeat. Scotland, Wales, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Lombardy, etc, are all still part of the larger states of which they are sub-nations.

Sean > , October 7, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

Enoch Powell said the European community was the economic wing of a military alliance (Nato). A couple of countries (Greece for one) were told they could not join the EC unless they were in Nato.

John Jeremiah Smith > , October 7, 2017 at 3:41 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism , can this even be stopped?

Oooooh, did someone screech a boogeyman term? Who cares? Let it fragment. Reduce the size of the state -- always a good thing. The higher the ratio of citizens to wannabe rulers, the better.

Sean > , October 7, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT

Catalonian like Scottish nationalism is largely motivated by resentment by region that perceives itself as being used by a milch cow. Ireland was more authentically nationalist. Powell said the British state was always keen to divest itself of Ireland , but originally wanted the fig leaf of home rule.

According to Paul Johnson in the Offshore Islanders, Ireland was a net drain of Britain (that might also have been true of the Empire be the beginning of the 20th century. Arthur Balfour was right their could be no halfway house.

Nationalism isn't hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don't understand them.

People who are impoverished proclaim their allegiance to their community, because they are looking for help . Hence nationalism and especially religion.

. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-replace-religion-by-2041-a-clarification_b_3695658.html
Research has shown that religion declines not just with rising national wealth but with all plausible measures of the quality of life, including length of life, decline of infectious diseases, education, the rise of the welfare state, and more equal distribution of income. Clearly there is less of a market for religion in societies where ordinary people feel secure in their daily lives. In the most developed countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the quality of life is so good that the majority is already secular.

Religion in an affluent society has not a snowball's chance in hell . When it was the poorest country in Europe, Scotland was a byword for religious fanaticism. A crypto-clerical Irish state had economic growth that was the poorest in western Europe and possibly all Europe. But once hyper-capitalism transformed Ireland, it became like everywhere else–only worse. They don't need the Church now–or nationalism. With war you would see nationalism. It is not nationalism that produces war but more the other way about. Germany got tired of great powers marching across it. Cambodia and North Korea too. For a resurgence of worldwide nationalism, a global war more true in the Clausewitz sense (ie unlimited) than anything imaginable would be needed.

WorkingClass > , October 7, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT

"Nationalism isn't hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don't understand them."

I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL.

I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.

Pat Boyle > , October 7, 2017 at 6:33 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

Some things expand – others decline. For example the total number of languages is dropping quickly I'm told. Every now and then there will be a media story about some old tribesman who dies and with him some language. The tone is always "Og was the last person on earth to speak (some obscure language)". When I read that I always wonder if he was the last speaker- who was he conversing with? It seems to me that a language is truly dead when the second to last speaker dies.

But if one of the root causes for nationalism and splitting off from the old country is language, with fewer languages shouldn't we have less nationalism?

There is also the 700 channel phenomenon. I have 700 TV channels (I think). The people who purport to understand such things tell us that newscasters are killing off regional dialects. Surely if we all speak the same more or less same language in more or less the same way, that will lessen the pressures to split off and form your own country. No?

Chinese shopping malls I see on the web look a lot like the malls in California. South Korea might give up the Korean language and adopt Chinese or Japanese. But they could adopt English. If they wanted to become the 51st state that would help.

jeppo > , October 7, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting exponentially).

The US could (and maybe should) break up into 50 different nation-states, while the entity known as the "United States" could evolve from a unitary nation into a transnational organization, similar to the evolution of the European Union except in reverse.

Meanwhile the EU could easily grow into 50 or more states, the former Soviet Union another 50, India a couple dozen, Africa an unknowable number etc. But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.

So in any widespread international fragmentation scenario, China probably wins. And that's OK, as long as Europeans/whites are allowed to maintain sovereignty over at least parts of Europe and North America.

On the other hand, if open-borders Spain and other suicidal Western countries (including the US and Russia) are allowed to survive in their present form, then they are all demographically doomed as white-majority nations.

peterAUS > , October 7, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT

@Randal A good discussion of a complex topic. Touches on conservatism versus radicalism as well, which I think affects whether one is likely to support sub-nationalism against an established nation, even one's own.

Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus "citizenist" (to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be "racist".

I noted recently that there is an interesting contrast between the British government's concession, in the case of Scotland, to the sub-nation of the inherent right to unilateral independence based merely on a majority of the sub-nation's population supporting it, and Spain's adherence to the opposite (and much more widespread) principle that secession is a matter for the nation as a whole, or simply treasonous sedition.

Someone has pointed to Quebec as another case where the point was conceded to the popular will of the sub-nation, and the whole process of the British withdrawal from colonial empire could be viewed as being the same (although there was a deal of US coercion and implicit threats of secessionist violence involved, along with the basic fact that thanks to WW1 & WW2 the British elites knew they lacked the strength to hold onto their colonies).

Clearly the constitutional positions of Scotland and of Catalonia are very different, but I think the governments of both Spain and Britain could have found ways to rationalise making the opposite choice to the one they took, if they had wanted to. Perhaps it comes down to the British government being confident they would win a referendum, but the Spanish government fearing they would not.

Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus "citizenist" (to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be "racist".

Well .a little correction if I may.

Ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism is definitely much stronger in self-sacrifice and will to fight. Definitely. But, in this case, I am not quite sure that Catalan seccseionists aren't actually exactly that.

I have a feeling that underneath that "citizenist' veneer there is that "ethnic and blood and soil" element. If if that is the case you actually, secession wise, have a perfect combination: ethnic solidarity and open mind; open mind technically, technologically and, of course, tactically.

You probably visit ARRSE. Take a look as some of posts by Brits (and ex-military most likely) who live there. Those hint, strongly, at "ethnic element" in this move. I mean, really, at the end of the day, why this can't be as Slovakia and Czech Republic? Or Baltic states? Or Macedonia (before Kosovo, that is .)? If it goes shooting it could be Slovenia. Short and effective for secession.

Of course, from there it can go through Croatia into, even, Bosnia. Uglier and much uglier. I doubt it can go Chechnya or Kosovo. Just not the environment, IMHO.

I see the problem here as deeply emotional and irrational element (by secessionists) versus modern, soft, civilized logic of Western world (by EU, NATO, US).

The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside. If .if ..that's that "real" nationalism.

We, outsiders, don't know that. Only Catalans do.

Jonathan Mason > , October 7, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

I don't see any good reason why Texas should not have independence if the people who live there want it. It is bigger than many independent nations like Lithuania or Moldovia that were once parts of the USSR.

If even tiny places like St. Kitts and Nevis can be independent nations, why shouldn't constituent United States disunite if they want to, or form new groups of United States? The constituent states of the US at present time are growing so that they all look the same, so I would like to see more diversity of lifestyles.

Jonathan Mason > , October 7, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.

You could get gored by a Texas longhorn instead.

Truth > , October 7, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

That's not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians

Atila, you're being paged!

Truth > , October 7, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT

If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?

Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

John Jeremiah Smith > , October 7, 2017 at 9:15 pm GMT

@Truth

If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?
Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.

On the other hand, if a defined population holds a referendum and votes by, say 3/4 majority to separate the political bonds that bind, why not? Is the Constitution a suicide pact? Is it forever and ever, no matter what?

Anon > , Disclaimer October 7, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT

@John Jeremiah Smith "Defending the Constitution" during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.

Buzz Mohawk > , October 7, 2017 at 11:30 pm GMT

There are quite a few Americans now whom one could call Neo-Confederates. They argue for what they claim was the right and rightness of the historic Southern secession. Some speak of doing it again. I wonder what Derb would say to them?

Hibernian > , October 8, 2017 at 12:11 am GMT

" -- with the rest of Britain not far behind "

Ireland was English ruled for centuries, and part of the United Kingdom for about a century and a quarter (Six counties still are.), but it was never part of Britain. Hibernia and Brittania are two separate islands, a fact of geography apart from politics, culture, etc.

Miro23 > , October 8, 2017 at 12:43 am GMT

@WorkingClass

I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.

You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the Constitution:

Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY. Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.

And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of opinion.

Let Texas be Texas and California be California.

It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.

Priss Factor > , Website October 8, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT

Question. The race problem in America. Was it slavery or race? Imagine the following thought-experiment. 300 yrs ago, suppose the colonists brought over 300,000 white or Asian slaves and 300,000 free black Africans.

Suppose, at some time, the white or Asian slaves were freed whereas blacks were never under slavery.

Today, which group would be causing the most problems? White or Asian descendants of slaves or black descendants of free blacks?

I think blacks would still be causing the most problem.

Genocide is worse than slavery, and it's been said pre-American Indians got 'genocided'. But they cause far less problems than blacks(and despite their great poverty).

Blacks were bound to cause more problems because of biological factors. They are more muscular, more aggressive, and less reflective.

Cato > , October 8, 2017 at 4:30 am GMT

@jeppo

But even if the fringe areas of China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion people.

Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that "homogeneous" Han core?

John Jeremiah Smith > , October 8, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT

@Anon

"Defending the Constitution" during the American Civil War almost turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.

Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades. Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 8, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT

Is America a nation? It is a country, but to call it a nation seems a bit too far. Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common. Nothing.

Truth > , October 8, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

@John Jeremiah Smith I believe that congress has to ratify any state leaving the union, but I could be wrong.

Grandpa Charlie > , October 8, 2017 at 5:41 am GMT

@WorkingClass

"I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL." -- WorkingClass

Hear ye! Especially when globalism is of the corporatist variety -- and is there any other now in 2017? Small nations generally don't stand a chance nor do the large nations unless their politic is a functional democracy -- actually ruled for and by an educated and aware electorate. In the case of small nations, they are like the states of the USA when the states compete for which can give more to huge corporations in hopes of the corporations relocating and bringing capital and jobs to Nebraska, Georgia, Texas, etc. and the winner is Global Capital, Inc..

In the case of large nations go ask Donald Trump.

Grandpa Charlie > , October 8, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT

@Miro23 As Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out (I believe it was in dissenting opinion in Gozales v. Raich ), the SCOTUS with their radical judicial activism (from both the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' sides if the Court) have effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

I agree with Thomas on that score, but that doesn't mean that I agree with those who find merit in the Confederacy's claim that the Tenth Amendment justified formation of the CSA and the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate States Army, thus beginning the Civil War.

If the Tenth Amendment were intended to nullify Article I, Section 10, then it needed to spell it out within the Amendment.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

-- U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 10

Sure, there are arguments to the contrary, but this approach is by far the most practical and truly conservative approach. The solution to the problem is difficult but plain enough. The people need to make clear to themselves and to their representatives in Congress that they do not want to see Congress surrendering its powers under the Constitution, whether that be to the Executive or to the Judiciary; and, the Congress then needs to rein in the activism of the SCOTUS, exercising their powers as given in Art. III, Sect. 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. -- U.S. Const.Art. III, Section 2

This approach to the necessary reforms is hoping for a lot from the American people, and it will be a long and difficult pull to effect it, but any other course will be either more difficult or will entail disaster. Many Americans have given up on reform within the Constitution, and have given up on the Constitution, and thus they would gladly court disaster today, thinking that we already have disaster but what is the way out if not by way of the Constitution?

unit472 > , October 8, 2017 at 8:07 am GMT

One great big fly in the ointment of any nation is the rise of the global corporation and finance. If the CEO of GM could claim during his Senate confirmation hearing back in the first Eisenhower Administration that there was no conflict of interest from his being Defense Secretary because 'what was good for GM was good for America" ( and vice versa) that is no longer true because GM and most other major companies have no 'national' base just markets.

As we are seeing right now large companies based out of Catalonia are scrambling to register their business address elsewhere to escape any punitive sanctions that might be levied by Madrid or Brussels against a putative Catalonian state.

Unless a 'nation' is large enough to fight back against the dominant power of large corporations ( and really today only the United States and China are) national independence is mostly an illusion.

Miro23 > , October 8, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT

@Priss Factor I would have two answers to this.

First, that slavery is mostly a rhetorical tool in the ongoing Jewish/ SJW race war against Anglo Americans (of course ignoring the Jewish involvement). The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can't see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work.

There was a recent comment on Unz from someone running three fast food jobs with hopelessly long, tightly controlled hours and lousy conditions. This work allowed him to support his family in a minimal way. You could argue that he was not a slave and was "free", but in what real sense is he any different from a slave. Same as Mexican illegals picking fruit. They probably work as hard as black slaves did for a minimum of food and shelter.

Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities. But it's still a mean. People like Carson and Obama can be way above the national average on intelligence and good luck to them.

A positive idea, is that different average ability levels aren't used to identify superior or inferior races – but rather to see individuals co-operatively contributing at their own particular level to a project (e.g. family or workplace). Some are at a higher level, and some at a lower level, but that's true of any organization, and doesn't stop people co-operating with a fair (not equal) share out of the rewards.

But it isn't going to happen in a divisive SJW environment where the media and education constantly push a racial narrative, and it's not going to happen with mass immigration that overwhelms any efforts at integration.

And, of course, it's all much easier with one race, one country, which is more or less how the world developed naturally over millennia.

However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents – pushing forward as an organized racial block to appropriate power for Jewish racial advantage – even to the extent of expending $ trillions of US resources for the benefit of Israel.

Randal > , October 8, 2017 at 9:35 am GMT

@peterAUS I agree that there are certainly strong ethno-centric elements to the nationalism in Catalonia, as presumably there always are in nationalist movements of any size. My point is really that the movement itself is unable to mobilise those sentiments effectively – among the most powerful human motivating factors around, which is exactly why globalists place such a big emphasis on delegitimising their expression, criminalising and silencing them – probably because they are hobbled by their own leftist internationalist political philosophy (see the political origins of the main Catalan separatist parties).

The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic aside.
If .if ..that's that "real" nationalism.

We, outsiders, don't know that.
Only Catalans do.

Yes, we can't know it for certain. But we can try to assess it from the available indicators, and my assessment fwiw is that that is not going to happen in the Catalan case, for various reasons.

Only a fool or a liar would claim certainty on such an issue, though.

Randal > , October 8, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

@Hibernian Yes, Derbyshire was a little lax using the term "Britain", when he should have written: " with the rest of the British Isles not far behind "

anon > , Disclaimer October 8, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

There are enormous economic advantages in having a large, national economy. You have a large domestic market, you can have a highly diversified economy, and you have a national currency. The best way to view this is from the outside. Decades of largely failed development economics are entirely consumed with how to overcome the advantages of the large, highly developed economies.

Industrialization's secret sauce was scale -- which a large national economy can support. This is so obvious and fundamental that it seems to be invisible. But also -- a large national economy also has 'diseconomies' and people have had to focus so long on those that it is understandable that the advantages no longer have the proper mindshare.

I view the US as both very strong as well as an underachiever.

Regardless. If a sub-nation splits off and then, for example, adopts the Euro, belongs to the EU, and is a member of NATO, then it isn't much of a nation. Leaving aside the question of military, would an independent California continue to use the dollar? And have free trade and open borders with Oregon and Nevada? And have a free trade agreement with the current 49 US states? If so, then there isn't all that much point. If not, then there are real costs and likely much higher costs than the states can imagine. The West Coast does quite will in global trade. And not in small part because Boeing is subsidized and US Tech firms and Media share a currency with the rest of the country that don't have the same export strength. Not unlike Germany, who benefit from a Euro that is much weaker than a stand alone Mark would be.

And finally -- like it or not -- the US will be dealing with a country (China) that will have massive scale advantages.

jeppo > , October 8, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

@Cato Yes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that "homogeneous" Han core?

There are seven major subgroups of spoken Chinese. Of those Mandarin is by far the largest, with about 950 million first language speakers, or 70% of China's total population. So even if China was reduced to its Mandarin core it would still be a massive nation.

Numinous > , October 8, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always "nationalism for me but not for thee."

Jonathan Mason > , October 8, 2017 at 2:40 pm GMT

@Light Roast

It's in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.

In that case, which corner is the Basque country around Bilbao and San Sebastian? Maybe that is not a corner at all. Spain seems to have 2 north east corners, but you might want to call the Barcelona corner the south east corner as it sits on the Mediterranean facing of the Iberian peninsula, rather than the Atlantic coast or Bay of Biscay.

In any case, if you really want to nit pick, Barcelona is below the corner formed by the Mediterranean and the French frontier and faces towards the Balearics.

And are Almeria and Gibraltar and Huelva located at corners, and what are they called?

Spain is actually shaped like the tilted head of a bull, with the two horns extending over Portugal and below France, so it has a lots of angles and corners and is not as square or rhomboidal as one might think.

Corvinus > , October 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

@Miro23 "The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I can't see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work."

First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as "property"; in other words, "gimmedats". Why didn't Europeans work the land themselves? Were they THAT lazy? Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights. Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else's fields.

"Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities."

IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

"However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents "

Why are you so obsessed with Jews?

Corvinus > , October 8, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

@Anonymous "Is America a nation?"

Absolutely.

"Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

Propagandist Hacker > , Website October 8, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT

the Derb does not favor breaking up the large nations what a surprise after all, he is a conservative and conservatism is nothing if not a propaganda arm of Big Business and keeping large nations together is important to Big Business profits how else can Big Business thwart the will of the white majority? After all, the governments of large nations such as america are not really controllable by the white majority and instead are controlled by .wait for it Big Business!

In general, the larger the nation, the less united and cohesive the nation and the easier it is for Big Business to control it the smaller the nation, in general, the more unified and cohesive .so the people are more united and they are more in control of their own government .large nations like the USA are not united and cohesive .and thus easier for Big Business to control the media and the GOP are against the Catalonia revolt a Catalonian nation would be more united and cohesive than the larger nation of Spain with Catalonia Big Business will lose out .a Catalonian nation would be better able to control its own immigration and no more cheap labor for Big Business no more consumer demand via immigration..oh no and no more cheap domestic labor for upper class propagandists like the Derb

Jonathan Mason > , October 8, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

@Corvinus

Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas have in common."

Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share a common language, customs, and ways of life.

Having human beings living in a country only differentiates it from uninhabited territory, so is not a very useful distinction as Antarctica and Greenland and the Arctic seem like the only really large land masses that are not inhabited, and they all have one thing in common–they are very cold.

Actually Spanish is spoken as the primary language in Puerto Rico, and there are other countries, for example Canada other than Quebec, where the way of life might have more in common with Alaska than with Puerto Rico or Hawaii, which also has its own language, though it is secondary to English.

Corvinus > , October 8, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT

@John Jeremiah Smith Non sequitar–an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

Slavery is a moral scourge.Moral scourges need to be eradicated. Therefore, slavery is a moral scourge that needs to be eradicated. **

Please point out how the conclusion ** does not logically flow from the previous statements.

"Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive."

Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.

"Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv?"

The same way you personally moralize about the scourge of liberals, the elites, and the Jews?

Miro23 > , October 8, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT

@Corvinus

First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as "property"; in other words, "gimmedats". .Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights.

How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously wrong but it doesn't automatically mean that the SJW trope "slaves were generally abused by their masters" is true.

Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else's fields.

I never said that. I was talking about modern day, "free market" hard minimum wage work for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery.

"Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities."

IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.

Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and 2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in most real life situations.

"However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents "

Why are you so obsessed with Jews?

I know that it's taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism).

The true obsession is US media concern with hiding the fact.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT

Sorry Mr Derbyshire. I know that you're an American by choice while I'm merely one by ancestry, but it seems to me and to many others that the need to disaggregate is obvious and pressing. If I thought that there was even a remote chance of returning the republic to something reasonably like the one I grew up in during the 1950s and 1960s, I'd certainly make the effort to effect that change. But we're past the point of no return. Too much of the nation is now a polyglot melange of Third Worlders. The only hope now is to try to save those parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

@Miro23 There's at least as good a chance of disaggregation as there is of returning to federalism. I'd say it's a considerably better chance. The globalists/multiculturalists in the blue regions (blue islands in a sea of red) will never consent to federalism. They might not be able to prevent other regions from breaking away.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie The Constitution is a dead letter. It is routinely flouted by both parties. One of the parties clearly despises it except when judges that they appointed can interpret it to mean the opposite of what it clearly means. If what you are suggesting were possible, I'd be in full agreement with you, but that ship has long since sailed.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 9:15 pm GMT

@anon I have no problem trading with the people of California, and I'd hope that they'd have no problem trading with me. But I don't want to live under the sort of laws that Californians want to live under. Best solution: We go our separate ways, but still cooperate where such cooperation is seen to be beneficial to both the parties.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT

@Corvinus Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who "stripped" the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave traders. The European and Arab slave traders (and those who bought the slaves from them) are not without serious fault, but they were simply availing themselves of a trade that had existed for centuries.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT

@Corvinus Less and less a common language.

MBlanc46 > , October 8, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT

@Propagandist Hacker the Derb does not favor breaking up the large nations...what a surprise...after all, he is a conservative...and conservatism is nothing if not a propaganda arm of Big Business...and keeping large nations together is important to Big Business profits...how else can Big Business thwart the will of the white majority? After all, the governments of large nations such as america are not really controllable by the white majority and instead are controlled by....wait for it...Big Business!

In general, the larger the nation, the less united and cohesive the nation...and the easier it is for Big Business to control it...the smaller the nation, in general, the more unified and cohesive....so the people are more united...and they are more in control of their own government....large nations like the USA are not united and cohesive....and thus easier for Big Business to control...the media and the GOP are against the Catalonia revolt...a Catalonian nation would be more united and cohesive than the larger nation of Spain with Catalonia...Big Business will lose out....a Catalonian nation would be better able to control its own immigration...and no more cheap labor for Big Business...no more consumer demand via immigration..oh no...and no more cheap domestic labor for upper class propagandists like...the Derb I should like to see John Derbyshire respond to this? Ahoy, Mr Derbyshire, are you reading the comments?

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) > , October 8, 2017 at 9:40 pm GMT

"Here's where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the old Comintern, the Communist International. We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale."

We already have a stirring anthem; we just need new lyrics.

I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., "comraids"), and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:

Stand up, all victims of oppression / For the tyrants fear your might / Don't cling so hard to your possessions [a taunt at John Lennon's "Imagine"?] / For you have nothing if you have no rights / Let racist ignorance be ended
Let no one build walls to divide us / Walls of hatred nor walls of stone [Hear that, Trump?] / Come greet the dawn and stand beside us / We'll live together or we'll die alone

Daniel Chieh > , October 9, 2017 at 3:43 am GMT

@Cato Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.

Miro23 > , October 9, 2017 at 7:23 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie The South tried to break away from the Union – and the result was the Civil War.

The idea is to stay within a looser Union (American Confederation?), whereby States can still respect and cooperate with each other, but with a lot smaller role for Washington, and correspondingly greater role in looking after their own affairs (raising and spending taxes locally).

Power would switch back to the State/County level and require plenty of citizen participation (almost certainly obligatory) which wouldn't be a bad thing.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw

Miro23 > , October 9, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT

@Daniel Chieh

Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.

There are different opinions on this:

The true foot soldiers of the political and economic program of Xi and Li are the people who have the most power in the current system – the local party leadership. This includes the heads of the 2,862 counties, 333 prefectures and 31 provincial-level divisions (not counting Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Put this group of just roughly 3,200 together, and you have the most important constituency of all for Xi and Li.

The loyalty and competence of provincial leadership in contemporary China is critical. Many of the key leaders from this group in fact sit on the Central Committee.

https://thediplomat.com/2013/11/in-china-all-politics-are-getting-more-local/

[Oct 08, 2017] Todays Republicans Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all are -- Neocons.

Notable quotes:
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | steemit.com

steemihal last month

People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans & Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all are -- "Neocons."

Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's going to end up making the way for them during his four years.

I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.

cve3 2 months ago

It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

[Oct 08, 2017] Russian views on the separatist referendums in Spain

Notable quotes:
"... Historically, the USSR was on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil war and there are still a lot of ties between Russia and Catalonia today. However, there is also s sympathy between Russia and Spain and the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony. ..."
"... The question which divides a lot of Russians is this: is Russia better off with a strong EU because a strong EU might be more capable of standing up to the US or is Russia better off with a weak EU because a weak EU weakens the Western 'front' against Russia? My personal opinion is that EU is doomed anyway and that a collapse of the EU would be a good thing for the people of Europe as it would bring closer the inevitable decolonization of the European continent. This suggests to me that while the eventual outcome of the current crisis is probably irrelevant to Russia, the fact that a crisis is happening is to Russia's advantage. ..."
"... the Kremlin's position that " this is an internal Spanish issue " is probably supported by a majority of experts. Russia has nothing to gain by involving herself in this crisis and she therefore won't do so. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Catalonia

Catalonia is far away from Russia and the outcome of the crisis there will have no real impact on Russian national interests. But on a political level, Catalonia is highly relevant to the Russian political debates. See for yourself:

The case of Catalonia can be compared to Crimea: a local referendum, organized against the will of the central government. In contrast, when Kosovo was cut-off from Serbia in total illegality and without any kind of referendum the entire West gave this abomination a standing ovation. The Russians then issues stark warnings about the precedent this set and thereafter South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea happened. Is the secession of Catalonia not the next logical step? Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude for many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of separatism – let's see how smart and "democratic" you guys truly are?! It is rather funny, in a bitter-sweet way, to see how 'democratic' policemen beat up peaceful demonstrators whose only "crime" was to want to cast a ballot in a box. A lot of Russians are now saying that Russia is now the only truly democratic and free country left out there. Needless to say, the way the Madrid government handled this situation further damage the credibility of the West, the EU and the entire notion of "civilized Europe" being "democratic".

My feeling is that the way the central government handled this event alienated most Russian who are simply baffled by the utter stupidity and needless brutality of the police crackdown during the vote: what in the world were the cops trying to achieve?! Did they really think that they could prevent the vote? And what is the point in then denying that a referendum did take place? Or what about the praise for the police and their behavior? I have to say that for all my pro-Spanish biases, the way Madrid handled it all truly seems fantastically stupid and self-defeating to me.

Historically, the USSR was on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil war and there are still a lot of ties between Russia and Catalonia today. However, there is also s sympathy between Russia and Spain and the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony. Still, a lot of Russian commentator did speak about Madrid's "Fascism" in handling the events in Catalonia, and footage of anti-separatists screaming Francoist slogans did not help.

Some Russians, however, mostly liberal, caution about supporting separatism movements in Europe because Russia herself in multi-national and because of the risk of the separatist fad coming right back to Russia. I don't think that this is much of a real risk for Russia. Not after Chechnia. I just don't see any region in Russia really interested in trying to secede from the Russian Federation. If anything, I see more potential for various region on the other side of the Russian border wanting to join Russia (Novorussia to begin with).

The question which divides a lot of Russians is this: is Russia better off with a strong EU because a strong EU might be more capable of standing up to the US or is Russia better off with a weak EU because a weak EU weakens the Western 'front' against Russia? My personal opinion is that EU is doomed anyway and that a collapse of the EU would be a good thing for the people of Europe as it would bring closer the inevitable decolonization of the European continent. This suggests to me that while the eventual outcome of the current crisis is probably irrelevant to Russia, the fact that a crisis is happening is to Russia's advantage.

I think that most Russians have positive feelings towards both Spain and Catalonia. The only clearly negative feelings I have seen over the past couple of days are elicited by the brutal and dumb way Madrid handled this crisis: most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians. But other than that, the Kremlin's position that " this is an internal Spanish issue " is probably supported by a majority of experts. Russia has nothing to gain by involving herself in this crisis and she therefore won't do so.

Randal > , October 5, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

Strong on the Kurdish/Russian analysis. Not so impressed with the Catalonia stuff, which seems to me to be overly impressed by all the hysterical propaganda about "police brutality" in the Spanish police perfectly reasonably trying to enforce the law.

Granted to some extent it's necessary to treat that propaganda seriously, to the extent that it has been successful in shaping some opinion, but it isn't necessary to restate it as though it's objectively true, which suggests Saker for some reason actually believes that a government has no right to order its police to arrest people who break the law, or that police have no right to deal with people who obstruct them in performing their lawful duty.

Try doing that in the US some time and see what it gets you.

I have inherent sympathy for the Catalan separatists as nationalists disrupting the Euro establishment's cosy setup, and inherent antipathy for them as a bunch of globalist lefty pro-immigration, pro-EU hypocrites, so I'm conflicted on my emotional response to the issue. Perhaps that allows for more objectivity.

In practical terms, though, I can see no short term future for Catalan separatism. There is almost zero possibility of any major world government recognising a unilaterally seceding region in Spain, for obviously self-serving reasons, and a unilateral declaration of independence leaves Catalonia in breach of Spanish law to the degree that it fails and outside the EU and without any realistic way to organise its finances and economy to the extent that it succeeds.

Far from making a mistake, I suspect the Madrid government did the right thing (from the point of view of the Spanish central government and its tactical objective of frustrating the Catalan separatists' goal on secession) in making it clear that the "referendum" was illegal – it prevented it from being a much more credible mandate for independence, and the hysterical response to a few robust police operations will soon fade as reality sets in.

Rationally, you would expect therefore that the noises the separatists are making about a UDI within days should be a bluff. However, it's certainly possible that Puigdemont's analysis is different and he will go ahead with one. In that case, it seems likely the central government will suspend regional government and arrest the separatist leaders, replace the senior ranks of the local police force and seek to ride out the likely mass demonstrations, mob resistance and strikes that will follow.

The separatists can only lose from then on, since all they can do is make life unpleasant for their own people in Catalonia while the central government tightens the noose. It doesn't appear there is sufficient or sufficiently strong support for independence in Catalonia, nor any strong foreign sponsor, to enable them to hold out long enough to bring Spain, backed by the EU establishment, to its knees. As time goes on, more and more people in Catalonia, starting with the strong opponents of separatism and moving on to neutrals and ultimately even "soft" separatist supporters, will come to blame the UDI hotheads for their situation.

The separatists will be left depending on a "hail Mary" to rescue them – a Spanish government collapse or some kind of Euro crisis that, instead of causing the big EU powers to tell Madrid to crack down harder and sort things out, somehow has the opposite effect.

Randal > , October 5, 2017 at 9:55 am GMT

Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude for many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of separatism – let's see how smart and "democratic" you guys truly are?!

The Karmic beauty is indeed there as far as the EU is concerned, but there is an irony within the irony, in that Spain is the only significant EU member ( pace any Rumanian patriots reading this) not to have recognised Kosovo .

John Doran. > , October 5, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

The common denominators are stupidity & Israel.

The stupidity of the Spanish "politicians" both from Milan & Catalan in allowing this situation to develop is almost unbelievable. The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has generated huge sympathy for the Catalans, who did not previously have a majority for independence. They will now be closer to a majority.

It's almost as though the dummy was conspiring WITH the Catalan dopes in the breakup of his own country. Weird.

Israel is, reportedly, a huge investor in the Catalan area. The Separatist movement is being driven by the Catalan elite, not from the grassroots. It's more Maidan than Wat Tyler.

Only Israel is backing the Barzani Kurd separatists who have considerable Jewish heritage & are as stupid as the Catalans in their greedy pursuit of autonomy.

The Israeli dream of Greater Israel, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" is at work in the M.East.
The globalist dream of the destruction of every nation, including the mad U$Asylum Empire & the Nazi state of Israehell is at work, again, in Europe.

John Doran.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website October 5, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

@Randal


Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude for many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of separatism – let's see how smart and "democratic" you guys truly are?!
The Karmic beauty is indeed there as far as the EU is concerned, but there is an irony within the irony, in that Spain is the only significant EU member ( pace any Rumanian patriots reading this) not to have recognised Kosovo . Solana is despicable.
Randal > , October 5, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

@John Doran. The common denominators are stupidity & Israel.

The stupidity of the Spanish "politicians" both from Milan & Catalan in allowing this situation to develop is almost unbelievable. The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has generated huge sympathy for the Catalans, who did not previously have a majority for independence. They will now be closer to a majority.

It's almost as though the dummy was conspiring WITH the Catalan dopes in the breakup of his own country. Weird.

Israel is, reportedly, a huge investor in the Catalan area. The Separatist movement is being driven by the Catalan elite, not from the grassroots. It's more Maidan than Wat Tyler.

Only Israel is backing the Barzani Kurd separatists who have considerable Jewish heritage & are as stupid as the Catalans in their greedy pursuit of autonomy.

The Israeli dream of Greater Israel, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" is at work in the M.East.
The globalist dream of the destruction of every nation, including the mad U$Asylum Empire & the Nazi state of Israehell is at work, again, in Europe.

John Doran.

The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has generated huge sympathy for the Catalans

LOL!

It's as though the world has been taken over by a combination of 1970s hippies moaning about "police brutality, man" because they got their weed confiscated and Marxist halfwits going on about "fascist oppressors" – oh, hang on, that pretty much is what has happened. They grew up into globalists and brought their children up as SJWs and antifa thugs

Catalan separatists:

"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! I'm being repressed!"

When did it become "Nazi-like" for police to enforce the law? (For grownups, I mean. Obviously childish hippies have always had that view.)

FB > , October 5, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

@Randal


The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has generated huge sympathy for the Catalans
LOL!

It's as though the world has been taken over by a combination of 1970s hippies moaning about "police brutality, man" because they got their weed confiscated and Marxist halfwits going on about "fascist oppressors" - oh, hang on, that pretty much is what has happened. They grew up into globalists and brought their children up as SJWs and antifa thugs

Catalan separatists:

"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! I'm being repressed!"

When did it become "Nazi-like" for police to enforce the law? (For grownups, I mean. Obviously childish hippies have always had that view.) Your repetition of the jingo 'police have a right to enforce the law' is laughably simplistic and at odds with reality

The right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable human right that is respected by pretty much any non-authoritarian regime

The details that you overlook are fatal

The 'police' with jurisdiction for law enforcement are always local what you refer to as 'police' are the Spanish Civil Guard, described by wikipedia as being 'organised as a military force' and with a long and bloody history during the authoritarian Franco era especially, as political shock troops

The footage of what took place is there for everyone to see there was not one recorded instance of the demonstrators resorting to violence, either against property or persons, including the Civil Guard

This itself is remarkable, as police agent provocateurs starting trouble is a standard tactic in any demonstration where authorities want to create an excuse for police violence the fact that they were unable to deploy such provocateurs speaks volumes about the order maintained by the demonstrators, supported by local police and first responders

Even US law enforcement with its penchant for violence has not behaved in this way recently, as was seen in the massive anti-trump riots they only swung into action after individuals initiated violence against property and persons

Every police department in civilized countries sticks to these rules, not least for their own interests during any mass demonstration, the local police interest is always to keep things from getting out of control and minimizing property damage and human casualties

What we saw in Catalonia was a non-local paramilitary force on a purely political mission of violent assault

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/860924/catalonia-referendum-spain-map-independence-barcelona-basque-civil-guard-polling

Bottom line is that police do have a duty to stop violent demonstrators who are breaking the law, but not peaceful assemblies

Anatoly Karlin > , Website October 5, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.

Which Russians exactly?

Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done away with.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-toward-putin-russia/pg_2017-08-16_views-of-russia_006/

most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians.

Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?

It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let alone have any strong opinion on it.

Daniel Chieh > , October 5, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin


... the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?

Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done away with.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-toward-putin-russia/pg_2017-08-16_views-of-russia_006/


... most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians.
Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?

It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let alone have any strong opinion on it.

It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let alone have any strong opinion on it.

This is what I suspect as well. It might matter more if Spain was a major trading partner with Russia, but I don't think that has been the case in recent history. I don't think there is a significant expat community of either Spanish in Russia or vice versa, either.

Watching the EU step a few more steps, zombie-like, toward her inevitable end must be faintly amusing, though.

Randal > , October 5, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT

@FB Your repetition of the jingo 'police have a right to enforce the law' is laughably simplistic and at odds with reality...

The right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable human right that is respected by pretty much any non-authoritarian regime...

The details that you overlook are fatal...

The 'police' with jurisdiction for law enforcement are always local...what you refer to as 'police' are the Spanish Civil Guard, described by wikipedia as being 'organised as a military force'...and with a long and bloody history during the authoritarian Franco era especially, as political shock troops...

The footage of what took place is there for everyone to see...there was not one recorded instance of the demonstrators resorting to violence, either against property or persons, including the Civil Guard...

This itself is remarkable, as police agent provocateurs starting trouble is a standard tactic in any demonstration where authorities want to create an excuse for police violence...the fact that they were unable to deploy such provocateurs speaks volumes about the order maintained by the demonstrators, supported by local police and first responders...

Even US law enforcement with its penchant for violence has not behaved in this way recently, as was seen in the massive anti-trump riots...they only swung into action after individuals initiated violence against property and persons...

Every police department in civilized countries sticks to these rules, not least for their own interests...during any mass demonstration, the local police interest is always to keep things from getting out of control and minimizing property damage and human casualties...

What we saw in Catalonia was a non-local paramilitary force on a purely political mission of violent assault...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/860924/catalonia-referendum-spain-map-independence-barcelona-basque-civil-guard-polling

Bottom line is that police do have a duty to stop violent demonstrators who are breaking the law, but not peaceful assemblies...

The right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable human right that is respected by pretty much any non-authoritarian regime

Peaceful assembly does not include intentionally breaking the law as confirmed by a direct court order, unless the law is an unreasonable one that precludes peaceful protest or political expression or assembly, which the Spanish law self-evidently does not. Catalan separatists in Spain have every right to speak and assemble freely, and they do so endlessly. Might as well claim drug dealers can't be arrested in the US for meeting to buy and sell drugs because it's a "breach of their inalienable human rights".

The 'police' with jurisdiction for law enforcement are always local

No they aren't. In the UK there are national police organisations that act on various kinds of crime. In the US federal police enforce federal laws.

Whether it's local or national police enforcing a court's orders is in reality irrelevant, except that local police might be more likely to abrogate their responsibility to enforce the law through partisan loyalty to the lawbreakers, as happened with the Catalan police.

Even US law enforcement with its penchant for violence has not behaved in this way recently

I don't know what world you live in, but in the real one the US and pretty much all police forces regularly enforce court orders and remove and/or arrest those who impede their doing so, with whatever level of violence is required to do so – usually not much in practice.

Here are German police dealing with hippy squatters "exercising their right of free assembly" in Berlin in June:

Here's how US police followed orders to clear leftists "exercising their right of free assembly" in Zucotti Park in 2011:

And here's how US police dealt with treehuggers "exercising their right of free assembly" in breach of the law in Montana last year:

Police in riot gear faced off with protesters on horseback as the months long protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline came to a head Thursday.

At least 117 protesters were arrested after law enforcement Humvees and helicopters began to flood the area to break up a protester encampment near the pipeline's path.

Calling themselves "water protectors," supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe set up tents and teepees on the land, about an hour south of Bismarck, which they said belongs to the tribe under a 19-century treaty.

But authorities said they are trespassing on pipeline property. Officials brought in reinforcements from seven states to remove protesters and dismantle roadblocks made of hay bales and wood.

As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd.

Look, I'm not a blanket apologist for the police or for government repression. I recognise that there are plenty of occasions when governments and police act repressively. But this business in Catalonia was not one of those times, even if there might have been occasions when individual officers or units got carried away – police are human beings, and those might be disciplinary issues but they do not make either the Spanish government enforcing the law nor the Spanish police carrying out their orders to do so somehow "Nazi-like", as the post to which I was replying asserted.

Catalan separatists are an awful lot less repressed than traditionalists/nativists/racists and other such dissident minorities of the traditionalist right are in Europe and the UK, where the latter can have their political representation infiltrated and disrupted, their meetings attacked, their sympathisers harassed and dismissed from employment, and their freedom of expression suppressed, with the connivance or even active cooperation of government. Catalan separatists as a matter of hard fact have all those freedoms that nativists etc do not, and having those freedoms does not require being allowed to carry out a specific illegal act that has been forbidden by court order, merely in order to try to flout the law of the land.

Carlo > , October 5, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT

@Johnny Rico


At the very least, Russia ought to do everything in her power to encourage Turkey to abandon its old ways and to follow Russia in her realization that her future is not with the West, but with the South, East and North
.

Whatever.

You Can Take The Man Out Of The Ghetto, But You Can't Take The Ghetto Out Of The Man.

These are intractable issues. As much as you wish otherwise, both Russia and Turkey are too big, too clumsy, and too backward to do much about any of this. Powerlessness. Get used to it. At least Russia has oil.

And the future is over-rated.

The smarter citizens of the West began to see the illusory folly of the Myth of Progress decades ago. You Russians are still trying to push Utopia. You would think you would have learned something from the whole Communist experiment. "You Russians are still trying to push Utopia."
What utopia is Russia still trying to push? The West wants the entire world filled with LGBT and tolerance and human rights and free trade and everyone then will be happy.

Mao Cheng Ji > , October 5, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin


... the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?

Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done away with.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-toward-putin-russia/pg_2017-08-16_views-of-russia_006/


... most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians.
Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?

It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let alone have any strong opinion on it.

Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans.

In general, everybody is hostile to everybody else, particularly when the establishment media are endlessly propagating hostile narratives, the US influence being (as the man said) a major factor in that. The phony 'global attitude' survey shows the favorability of the US in Germany dropping 20-30% in one year, and yet the US is exactly the same country. These numbers are meaningless.

Carlo > , October 5, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

... the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?

Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done away with.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-toward-putin-russia/pg_2017-08-16_views-of-russia_006/

... most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians.
Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?

It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let alone have any strong opinion on it. Well, Spain allowed for some years the Russian Navy to stop for provisions in Ceuta. Only last year they finally capitulated to NATO pressure. Locals also noticed that Russian sailors and officers were always polite and ordered, never entering into brawls or getting drunk in public, after a well-orchestrated worldwide propaganda campaign like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/as-aleppo-burns-spain-resupplies-the-russian-navy_us_5808b794e4b00483d3b5d06a

[Oct 06, 2017] MSM propagate "moron" fake news with the intensity that probably deserve a better target

Neoliberal MSM continue to try to create discord within trump administration. Now this is CNN turn to spread the rumors (aka "fake news"). Again "anonymous source" are all over the pace in this story. they probably should be called "anonymous fakers".
The only think I do not understand is why they are continuing targeting Trump. Trump folded and abandoned his election promises. What do they want, as his resignation will open a can of worm that is more dangerous them continuation of Trump tenure in white house.
This looks extremely disingenuous from MSM fakers. Are they running our of option to blackmail Trump?
Notable quotes:
"... Early Wednesday, Tillerson spoke with Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, by phone as the story aired on morning television. ..."
"... "Total confidence in Rex. I have total confidence," he said. He called the reports about Tillerson's "moron" comment "totally phony." ..."
Oct 06, 2017 | www.msn.com
'Moron'

This week, Tillerson insisted in public that he's never considered leaving the administration, and vowed to remain in his post "for as long as the president feels I can be useful to achieving his objectives."

Trump, however, has expressed frustration that Tillerson is stymieing aspects of his agenda. Trump grew furious on Wednesday when early morning news reports emerged that Tillerson had called him a "moron" during a meeting about Afghanistan over the summer. The public airing of the insult deeply angered the president, who vented on Twitter that the story amounted to "fake news."

Multiple sources told CNN that Trump was aware that Tillerson had used the word to describe him before the public report emerged, though it wasn't clear when he first learned of it. Having the information leaked, however, enraged him. Early Wednesday, Tillerson spoke with Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, by phone as the story aired on morning television. Both agreed that Tillerson should deliver a statement refuting aspects of the report, which also said he had considered resigning from his post.

Tillerson delivered a set of remarks that adamantly denied he'd ever considered leaving the administration, and offered effusive praise for Trump's foreign policy objectives.

"There's never been a consideration in my mind to leave," Tillerson said from the State Department Treaty Room.

But he did not deny calling Trump a "moron" when asked directly. Later, the State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, said Tillerson told her he'd never used that language to describe the president.

After delivering his mid-morning statement, the secretary of state met at the White House with Kelly, who had remained behind in Washington as Trump flew cross-country to console survivors of Sunday's mass shooting in Las Vegas . The President viewed the statement from Air Force One and later, inside a hospital trauma center, insisted he remained confident in his top diplomat.

"Total confidence in Rex. I have total confidence," he said. He called the reports about Tillerson's "moron" comment "totally phony."

[Oct 05, 2017] Tillerson Summoned to White House Amid Presidential Fury

MSm stil trying to sing Trump, and it looks like he is helping them. Campaign of well times and damaging leaks continue.
Notable quotes:
"... Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama. ..."
Oct 05, 2017 | www.msn.com
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama.

WASHINGTON -- John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss's fury and manage the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.

Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House, where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so to manage day-to-day operations.

Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was traveling, seven officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone before the secretary's public appearance on Wednesday morning.

Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson's top spokesman had said he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had asked Tillerson in a meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson, is helpful or harmful to the administration.

NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a series of clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations among his colleagues by calling the president a "moron," according to multiple senior administration officials who were aware of the matter at the time.

Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that Tillerson had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the Pentagon. Trump vented to Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas to meet with victims and first responders in Sunday's mass shooting.

Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published shortly before 6 a.m. Wednesday. For the next two hours the president fumed inside the White House, venting to Kelly, officials said. He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8 a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule. Tillerson scrambled to pull together a statement, while his spokesman publicly apologized for his comments about Pence and Haley, saying he "spoke out of line about conversations I wasn't privy to."

Tillerson delivered a statement praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning, but it's what he didn't say that further enraged Trump, officials said.

The secretary's refusal to deny that he had called the president a "moron" in his opening statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked Trump's anger and widened the rift between the two men, officials said. After watching the secretary's response Wednesday, one White House official said, "When Tillerson didn't deny it, I assumed it was true." Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence's office, as untrustworthy, officials said. It's unclear if he will remain in his post, according to three administration officials.

Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said, particularly in private meetings," one White House official said. On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State Department officials to make it clear that Hammond's comment was "false" and needed to be corrected. The revelations followed Trump's frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson said the U.S. would talk to North Korea.

State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft during his flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn't reach him, sources said. The secretary and his team didn't want to issue a clarification, further stoking tensions with the White House, on administration official said.

Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate with the North Korean regime.

Related:

[Oct 04, 2017] Wheels and Deals Trouble Brewing in the House of Saud by Pepe Escobar

The quote attributed to Mark Twain and Yogi Berra "It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future" still holds. This assessment by Pete Escobar about forthcoming bankruptcy of KAS need to be verified in three years from now. It is unclear whether the key future events (such as prediction that the current Crown Prince might be deposed with the CIA help) will take place.
It is, nevertheless, clear that KAS economics is under considerable stress due to low oil prices and that eventually can bankrupt the kingdom as foreign currency reserves shrink rapidly. What such economic crisis might entail for KAS we can only guess by reshuffling at the top is quite probably in this case. So in a way the future of KAS hangs on how soon oil prices will be pushed back into $100 range.
Notable quotes:
"... MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else. ..."
"... "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together. ..."
"... Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership." ..."
"... MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people." ..."
"... The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal. ..."
"... I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. ..."
"... The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles." ..."
"... Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles." ..."
"... In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill. ..."
"... In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment. ..."
"... In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt." ..."
"... This piece first appeared in Asia Times . ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

No wonder, considering that the ousted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef – highly regarded in the Beltway, especially Langley – is under house arrest. His massive web of agents at the Interior Ministry has largely been "relieved of their authority". The new Interior Minister is Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, 34, the eldest son of the governor of the country's largely Shi'ite Eastern Province, where all the oil is. Curiously, the father is now reporting to his son. MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else.

Former King Abdulaziz set up his Saudi succession based on the seniority of his sons; in theory, if each one lived to the same age all would have a shot at the throne, thus avoiding the bloodletting historically common in Arabian clans over lines of succession.

Now, says the source, "a bloodbath is predicted to be imminent." Especially because "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together.

ISIS playing by the (Saudi) book

Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership."

MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people."

The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal.

I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. Egypt and Pakistan have refused to send troops to Yemen, where relentless Saudi air bombing – with US and UK weapons – has accelerated malnutrition, famine and cholera, and configured a massive humanitarian crisis.

The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles."

Which brings us to the ultimate Saudi contradiction. Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles."

In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill.

And then there's the economic blockade against Qatar – another brilliant MBS plot. That has only served to improve Doha's relations with both Ankara and Tehran. Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was not regime-changed, whether or not Trump really dissuaded Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from taking "military action." There was no economic strangulation: Total, for instance, is about to invest US$2 billion to expand production of Qatari natural gas. And Qatar, via its sovereign fund, counterpunched with the ultimate soft power move – it bought global footballing brand Neymar for PSG , and the "blockade" sank without a trace.

"Robbing their people blind"

In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment.

No dissent whatsoever is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Even the economic analyst Isam Az-Zamil, very close to the top, has been arrested during the current repression campaign. So opposition to MBS does not come only from the royal family or some top clerics – although the official spin rules that only those supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Iran and Qatari "terrorism" are being targeted.

In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt."

It will be immensely enlightening to compare what Trump gets from Salman with what Putin gets from Salman: the ailing King will visit Moscow in late October. Rosneft is interested in buying shares of Aramco when the IPO takes place. Riyadh and Moscow are considering an OPEC deal extension as well as an OPEC-non-OPEC cooperation platform incorporating the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

Riyadh has read the writing on the new wall: Moscow's rising political / strategic capital all across the board, from Iran, Syria and Qatar to Turkey and Yemen. That does not sit well with the US deep state. Even if Trump gets some Rust Belt deals, the burning question is whether the CIA and its friends can live with MBS on the House of Saud throne.

This piece first appeared in Asia Times .

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). His latest book is Empire of Chaos . He may be reached at [email protected] .

[Oct 04, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

[Oct 04, 2017] How Kurdish Independence Underpins Israel's Plan to Reshape the Middle East by Jonathan Cook

Notable quotes:
"... It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. ..."
"... Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US. ..."
"... Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official. ..."
"... Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power. ..."
"... The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency. ..."
"... Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war. ..."
"... Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East. ..."
"... The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities. ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Palestinians and Israelis watched last week's referendum of Iraq's Kurds with special interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.

Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.

Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by their overlords.

Israel's complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence, and other politicians spoke of the Kurds' "moral right" to a state. None saw how uneasily that sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.

On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.

But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their ambition to become a "second Israel".

Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State's influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite allies in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel's current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations.

It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US.

Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.

Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power.

The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency.

Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Washington's oversight of the country's bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up permanent.

Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent. And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the 2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities there may be ripe for stirring up.

Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East.

The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net .

[Oct 04, 2017] Neocons credo: We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country...

Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

Franklin Ryckaert > , October 3, 2017 at 11:59 am GMT

Dershowitz : " We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country "

Success of "this country" or success of a tiny minority of "this country"?

Dershowitz : " "Anyone that does [that] has to be treated with economic consequences. We have to hit them in the pocketbook "

That is called Mafia methods in Goyim-speech.

Did this man not write a book called "Chutzpah" ?

(and I don't believe his frequent visits to Jeffrey Epstein's "paedophile -island" were that innocent either.)

[Oct 04, 2017] Why talk about Jewish influence is mostly baloney. People are better then ideologies. neocon are lobbists for MIC first, and only then Israeli firsters

We can talk about Anglo Zionism as a particular version of neocolonial ideology, but to substitute the ideology for nationality or ethnicity is a great mistake. In this sense Russophobia is the new politically correct Anti-Semitism, actually practiced by neocons (many of whom are Jewish ;-). As Marx noted history repeats itself...
Notable quotes:
"... I really don't believe they [Jews] are the only ones. There are others very interested in fomenting war, who aren't Jewish. The war alliance in this instance is one of convenience, where the various proponents of war pursue their own ends. While Likud influence is pervasive, due to the influence of wealth interests on their behalf, there are also others for whom war is an incredible source of profit, as per Gen. Butler's timeless War Is A Racket, and the religion of all of them is money and power, with their ethnicity, not Jewish, irrelevant to that. I haven't seen Dick Cheney wearing a yarmulke. His ilk have their own reasons, which don't have any coincidence with the tenets of either Christianity or Judaism. ..."
"... If Hitler's adherents had succeeded in his so-called Final Solution of genocide of Jews and the many others his followers intended to do in as well as a secondary priority – guess what? There would still be war and imperialism, massacres, genocides, bloodbaths and tortures. ..."
"... To believe anything else, is to be as delusional as that high non Jewish official, James Clapper, who posited that the Russians are genetically programmed to be our eternal enemies. It's more likely that the sin nature Jim Clapper shares with the rest of us has been genetically inherited to look for enemies to destroy and create them where they didn't exist before, absent the corrective of God's Holy Spirit. ..."
"... There is such a thing as being right, but for all the wrong reasons. That leads to actions taken that produce unintended baleful consequences. ..."
"... I don't think that what TAC is engaging in is censorship; no magazine has an obligation to publish anyone, or promote something they think contrary to their objectives. ..."
"... The surest way to defeat an antiwar policy is to yoke it to opinions that will discredit that. I do think a principled rejection of the extremist antisemitic comments that for whatever reasons Phil's comments attract, would go a long way to dispel the impression that perhaps he approves of the untoward things they promote, even if he chooses to let them use his column as an act of live and let live toleration. ..."
"... The problem with Phil's piece isn't that it tells the truth, but that the way it was written, it appeared to tar "the Jews" without differentiation, which would be an arguably racist and a false accusation It then went further, perhaps in a fit of understandable but not completely excusable pique, to suggest that a religious and racial test be established to forbid Jews from being involved in government. ..."
"... As unfortunate as the consequences are, to have any effectiveness in its mission, TAC had to distance itself from what Phil seemed to express, and they can't be blamed for not wanting to identify with a proposal to purge Jewish people from government service. I mean, that makes the assumption that Jewish people, per se, are unsuitable for full citizenship. That really is dangerously close to the arguments of post Weimar Germany, and we are going to at some point have our own post-Weimar America, with all its attendant and destructive temptations. ..."
"... Their influence seems to have been important in getting the US into the Iraq debacle, although Americans Jews were probably more anti war than pro war as compared to the general population and so it is a bit mad to blame Jews for that. ..."
"... As for your firing from TAC: the article was pretty sloppy and rather taints the conservative anti war movement by bridging from it to the type of comments made below your article. Should someone be fired for one poorly conceived and unproductive article? ..."
"... Their descriptions of Jews are insurmountable in their nastiness. Who are these people? Does anyone really think this way about anyone? ..."
"... The problem with neocons and their fellow travelers, many of the latter less Jewish than Hitler himself, is their faulty and destructive values, not their genetic origin. ..."
"... Jew baiters and Jew haters, have nothing of any value to contribute to understanding, blinded as they are by their obsessions. In fact if the neocons have come from the dark side, they surely share the same malignant inspiration. ..."
"... Unfortunately, I think your justified focus on damaging Likudnik policies that are harmful not just to the United States, but ultimately to Israel, caused you to fall into a baleful trap in which you did not disarm this predictable response at the same time. Sure, perhaps you ought not to have to take that much care, but that is the world of a politics that is practiced as if any means is justified to win. ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

Fran Macadam > , October 4, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

I really don't believe they [Jews] are the only ones. There are others very interested in fomenting war, who aren't Jewish. The war alliance in this instance is one of convenience, where the various proponents of war pursue their own ends. While Likud influence is pervasive, due to the influence of wealth interests on their behalf, there are also others for whom war is an incredible source of profit, as per Gen. Butler's timeless War Is A Racket, and the religion of all of them is money and power, with their ethnicity, not Jewish, irrelevant to that. I haven't seen Dick Cheney wearing a yarmulke. His ilk have their own reasons, which don't have any coincidence with the tenets of either Christianity or Judaism.

If Hitler's adherents had succeeded in his so-called Final Solution of genocide of Jews and the many others his followers intended to do in as well as a secondary priority – guess what? There would still be war and imperialism, massacres, genocides, bloodbaths and tortures.

War is most often begun by those making the decisions above the people, to take what belongs to someone else. Propaganda techniques manufacture public opinion to the extent necessary for at least minimal support.

Jewish people aren't any different from others in terms of the character found among them from anyone else.

I have been subjected to prejudice from some Jewish people, and also been befriended by others. That's the experience I've had across the board with humanity, and it's even included the same run of experience among folks from Iran, including Zoroastrians.

To believe anything else, is to be as delusional as that high non Jewish official, James Clapper, who posited that the Russians are genetically programmed to be our eternal enemies. It's more likely that the sin nature Jim Clapper shares with the rest of us has been genetically inherited to look for enemies to destroy and create them where they didn't exist before, absent the corrective of God's Holy Spirit.

Blessed are the peacemakers. Peace is not going to be served by going metaphorically to war with "the Jews," seeing them as intrinsically any more a nefarious force than the face of humanity that stares back from the mirror.

There is such a thing as being right, but for all the wrong reasons. That leads to actions taken that produce unintended baleful consequences.

Fran Macadam > , October 4, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

If it was the editor, Robert W. Merry holds that post. There are a lot of antiwar folks there who hold official titles as editors as well, some prominent on sites like antiwar.com, who aren't shy about going after neocon policies and those who advance them. It would be interesting to hear their take on this imbroglio, because they are not exactly shy about going up against the status quo, and have regarded Phil collegially in common cause.

I think at one time or another, I've disagreed on some point with all of them, probably the least of all with Phil Giraldi. But I can tell you, I regard all who oppose warmaking anyhow as allies for that purpose. As for the SJW types, my opinion of them can be determined by the doxxing internet campaign they conducted to try to destroy my livelihood and to shut me up through intimidation and fabrication.

I don't think that what TAC is engaging in is censorship; no magazine has an obligation to publish anyone, or promote something they think contrary to their objectives.

The surest way to defeat an antiwar policy is to yoke it to opinions that will discredit that. I do think a principled rejection of the extremist antisemitic comments that for whatever reasons Phil's comments attract, would go a long way to dispel the impression that perhaps he approves of the untoward things they promote, even if he chooses to let them use his column as an act of live and let live toleration.

That said, I've had several instances of being given the chance to pursue other opportunities, and I have to admit the experience did nothing to make me think well of those who made it clear it wasn't just a suggestion.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT

The problem with Phil's piece isn't that it tells the truth, but that the way it was written, it appeared to tar "the Jews" without differentiation, which would be an arguably racist and a false accusation It then went further, perhaps in a fit of understandable but not completely excusable pique, to suggest that a religious and racial test be established to forbid Jews from being involved in government.

Well perhaps an argument could be made for recusal where there really are dual loyalties conflicting. But that would have to be made on a fair case by case basis. Phil said he would have rephrased it if he had it to do over. Sadly, what could likely happen now since pride so often becomes more important than truth, is that Phil's heart will harden, and although a coterie of anti semites will claim victory in making him one of their own, the effectiveness if the main effort to reclaim U.S. Policy from foreign interests contrary to those of the American people will be made less effective.

As unfortunate as the consequences are, to have any effectiveness in its mission, TAC had to distance itself from what Phil seemed to express, and they can't be blamed for not wanting to identify with a proposal to purge Jewish people from government service. I mean, that makes the assumption that Jewish people, per se, are unsuitable for full citizenship. That really is dangerously close to the arguments of post Weimar Germany, and we are going to at some point have our own post-Weimar America, with all its attendant and destructive temptations.

Tyrion > , October 4, 2017 at 1:50 am GMT

Mr Giraldi,

Being Jewish but also a Brit, I don't really get your article. It seems that there were about 15 mostly Jewish intellectuals who had a dream of democratising the Middle East.

Part of the reason they wanted to do this was to improve Israel's neighbourhood, and they have also been pretty anti-Assad and the Iran deal for the same reason.

Their influence seems to have been important in getting the US into the Iraq debacle, although Americans Jews were probably more anti war than pro war as compared to the general population and so it is a bit mad to blame Jews for that.

Assad has also remained in power and the Iran deal is being kept to, so, again, not sure what the fuss is about.

As for your firing from TAC: the article was pretty sloppy and rather taints the conservative anti war movement by bridging from it to the type of comments made below your article. Should someone be fired for one poorly conceived and unproductive article? Probably not, that is what editing is for, so you have my full sympathies.

As for the comments, I tried to come up with an hyperbolic way to describe them to make a point, but I couldn't. Their descriptions of Jews are insurmountable in their nastiness. Who are these people? Does anyone really think this way about anyone?

I appreciate that asking a journalist to criticise his biggest fans is unfair, but since your biggest fans seem to be people in the grips of paranoid schizophrenic delusions about some sort of synagogue of Satan controlling the world – does this not cause you at least a little concern?

As for you general anti-war journalism. Best of luck!

Not one of the countries we have intervened in has been worth the sacrifice of our young servicemen.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 9:49 pm GMT

Pretty soon they'll be singing the praises of Adolf Hitler, except that he failed. Yes?

I wouldn't console myself with the praises of those so possessed, were they the last people on earth.

The problem with neocons and their fellow travelers, many of the latter less Jewish than Hitler himself, is their faulty and destructive values, not their genetic origin.

Jew baiters and Jew haters, have nothing of any value to contribute to understanding, blinded as they are by their obsessions. In fact if the neocons have come from the dark side, they surely share the same malignant inspiration.

Anon > , Disclaimer October 4, 2017 at 1:40 am GMT

"The problem with neocons and their fellow travelers, many of the latter less Jewish than Hitler himself, is their faulty and destructive values, not their genetic origin."

No, that's a distortion. Your comment suggests that it is mere happenstance that neocons are the way they are, as if their beliefs just happened to have fallen from the sky. That's usually not the case.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that many neocons are motivated by an inappropriate attachment to a foreign country given:

1. the most influential neocons are disproportionately Jewish

2. many of these same people are strongly pro-Israel (is there even one example of an anti-Israeli neocon even one?)

3. many of their views track with the current government of Israel's policies (something pointed out in the Israel Lobby)

4. there exists a series of organizations with breathtaking influence and wealth dedicated to advancing neocons and their policies – organizations that also just happen to be heavily pro-Israel

5. neocons seem more heavily fixated on Israel's immediate neighborhood than many other important locations around the planet.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 6:36 am GMT

Phil, I concur in your evaluation of how you ought to have rewritten your article. When I read it, I did get the intimation that there seemed to be a generic anti-Jewish animus because you didn't explain how you have no problem with some clear thinking folks who are also Jewish.

Given that these political critiques are going to generate opposition, because of the high political stakes in which there is going to be no nuance or quarter given, it's practically important that no ammunition for defenestration be even inadvertently proferred.

Unfortunately, I think your justified focus on damaging Likudnik policies that are harmful not just to the United States, but ultimately to Israel, caused you to fall into a baleful trap in which you did not disarm this predictable response at the same time. Sure, perhaps you ought not to have to take that much care, but that is the world of a politics that is practiced as if any means is justified to win.

What isn't helpful, as well, are the commenters who clearly express genuine anti-semitic bigotry, who tar your own insights with their connotation of outright hatred of Jews and Holocaust denial by association. I suggest that moderating these comments to eliminate them would be prudent. I am sure some of them are even Hasbara false flag efforts, but whether or not, they serve no purpose at all useful to a sane discussion of how poorly conceived Israeli policies are actually counterproductive for the wellbeing of all of us, Jew and non-Jew alike.

I would like to know the name of the editor who delivered the blow. I think given your explanation, he ought to reconsider and that we should be able to complain. But then, perhaps you are being more generous than he, because surely it would subject him to destructive personal doxxing by some of those associated with the more unhinged commenters here.

I know from personal experience how unethical such mob driven personal destruction can be, having been doxxed by a campaign of falsehoods designed to destroy, even if it wasn't for the same reason – except the commonality of being effective at debunking status quo opinion.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals. I recently had to do something like that in regards to some different more personal issues myself, as I had momentarily lost perspective due to emotional involvement, and I valued truth at least this time more than my ego. The outcome was good and I was forgiven for my lapse, and I didn't violate my integrity either. You can choose not to publish this comment, as it is somewhat personal. God bless.

JackOH > , October 3, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT

@Fran Macadam In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals. I recently had to do something like that in regards to some different more personal issues myself, as I had momentarily lost perspective due to emotional involvement, and I valued truth at least this time more than my ego. The outcome was good and I was forgiven for my lapse, and I didn't violate my integrity either. You can choose not to publish this comment, as it is somewhat personal. God bless. "In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now?"

Fran, I agree with you. I scanned Phil's article quickly, and clearly understood "Jews" to mean a clique of unduly influential and like-minded Jews in power and media centers. Not all Jews, not at all. But, I can sort of understand–sort of–how some casual readers could believe Phil's piece to be a smear job.

Phil, any chance of a rewrite to clarify your thinking and add robustness to it?

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Maybe. I had intended that this piece be in part a clarification of what I was thinking. Dunno if it merits a full rewrite. Will sleep on it! Phil, I pray that you do. Your influence in the larger scheme of things and your insights are too good to lose. We are all being driven by societal currents into identity politics, whether we agree with it or not. It is more harmful than useful to individual freedom, because it can never tell us the particular character or principles of any person we will personally encounter. I think of the negative reaction and controversy that the great political philosopher, Hannah Arendt became embroiled in, during the aftermath of the Eichmann trial and her articles about it as an eyewitness. Her own value was her integrity, yet she lost lifetime friendships because she said she would not make her own identity that of a tribe, to the detriment of the truth, which had been demanded of her. We owe it to such brave individuals not to make the mistake of inadvertently tarring them by association to their ethnic or religious origins they may share with the mistaken or even the ill-intentioned, but make it clear that our critiques are over faulty policies driven by mistaken thinking. I think that this satisfies even the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" What is truly good for all, if considered in all consequences, will be policies that are charitable to all. The best practical friend anyone could have, is the one who may not do just what you want, but what is best, keeping you accountable. And so it ought to be, in fairness to friend and foe alike, some of the latter we may even convince if we don't place them beyond the pale.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Thank you Randal - your last para precisely represents my concern about doing what looks like a rewrite as it could be twisted to look like a recantation. Phil, I successfully negotiated the landmine of feeling that revising a few words of what I wrote would be tantamount to recantation of my fairly held main points. Despite my fears and the feelings that I was being betrayed, the courage to do this, in my own case, resulted in even stronger support for me. I did not recant, I took my friends' concerns sympathetically and seriously, and explained my choice of words. In the end, this allowed them to mount a strong defense on my behalf, instead of dividing us as was the objective of those who didn't like the overall assessment.

I think it understandable that when considering the foreign intelligence information you have seen, which would stun many folks not privy to it, would produce a level of outrage that could lead to wording that could look unfair. Still, it is very important to clarify that there ought not to be a religious or ethnic test for serving in any capacity, merely an open vetting of any particular individual's real views with the policy implications for that. As you may have surmised, as an evangelical Christian, my policy views if not my orthodoxy are outside the group mainstream. So it's the what, not the who, that's important.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi He is constantly self-promoting and also considers a number of neocons friends. He routinely bans comments critical of Israel from his pieces and is quite open about doing so. I don't think he's terribly fond of me, but he has allowed near 100% of my comments, which wasn't the case several years ago. As for self-promotion, he's not retired and isn't going to be getting a government or corporate pension, and given his public opinions neither would he be employable by either, so in that position it's an economic necessity.

John Jeremiah Smith > , October 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam Phil, I concur in your evaluation of how you ought to have rewritten your article. When I read it, I did get the intimation that there seemed to be a generic anti-Jewish animus because you didn't explain how you have no problem with some clear thinking folks who are also Jewish. Given that these political critiques are going to generate opposition, because of the high political stakes in which there is going to be no nuance or quarter given, it's practically important that no ammunition for defenestration be even inadvertently proferred. Unfortunately, I think your justified focus on damaging Likudnik policies that are harmful not just to the United States, but ultimately to Israel, caused you to fall into a baleful trap in which you did not disarm this predictable response at the same time. Sure, perhaps you ought not to have to take that much care, but that is the world of a politics that is practiced as if any means is justified to win.

What isn't helpful, as well, are the commenters who clearly express genuine anti-semitic bigotry, who tar your own insights with their connotation of outright hatred of Jews and Holocaust denial by association. I suggest that moderating these comments to eliminate them would be prudent. I am sure some of them are even Hasbara false flag efforts, but whether or not, they serve no purpose at all useful to a sane discussion of how poorly conceived Israeli policies are actually counterproductive for the wellbeing of all of us, Jew and non-Jew alike.

I would like to know the name of the editor who delivered the blow. I think given your explanation, he ought to reconsider and that we should be able to complain. But then, perhaps you are being more generous than he, because surely it would subject him to destructive personal doxxing by some of those associated with the more unhinged commenters here.

I know from personal experience how unethical such mob driven personal destruction can be, having been doxxed by a campaign of falsehoods designed to destroy, even if it wasn't for the same reason - except the commonality of being effective at debunking status quo opinion.

What isn't helpful, as well, are the commenters who clearly express genuine anti-semitic bigotry, who tar your own insights with their connotation of outright hatred of Jews and Holocaust denial by association.

Something like the American patriots who attacked the British Crown in print? Something like the Negros who attacked Jim Crow? Americans who attacked Hitler's policies and actions as head of state?

You mean people who speak truth? You mean people who speak truth plainly ? Icky people like that?

Are you familiar with the term "Pharisee"?

Andrei Martyanov > , Website October 3, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

@Jake I think Rod Dreher is a very easily excitable girly-boy. His heart bleeds and bleeds. His instincts are usually very good, but then something will get his heart bleeding, and then he sounds like another hysterical Liberal woman.

The Left plays Dreher like an old drum, and he always delivers.

His instincts are usually very good

I would disagree with that. But it is just me.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

There are plenty of Jewish individuals who are appalled by the bullying tactics of Benjamin Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson, but if lumped in with them through identity politics, will feel they have to reluctantly support them, just like a lot of beleaguered folks feel corraled into supporting Donald Trump as a matter of self defense.

What can we say about any of our tribes, except that in any of them, those who exemplify our best character and principles will always be in the minority. It's counterproductive to then double down on victimizing those innocents who will also be attacked by the powerful members of their tribes that all of us in the minority are trying to hold accountable.

Flavius > , October 3, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT

Phil – Samuel Johnson dismissed faux patriotism by calling it "the last refuge of the scoundrel." When the charge of anti-semitism is faux, it lands the accusers squarely in the same contemptible category.

I wouldn't go re-writing anything. People who know the body of your work know that you are not an anti-semite. There is no explanation or refinement that will satisfy the scoundrel. With this set, it is best to "never complain, never explain."

I was a charter subscriber to American Conservative when it had the bona fide cajones to speak truth to power. The election of Barack Obama changed all that. It continued to speak truth to power alright, only it was the power that had been. Now it's just a pathetic wraith of its former self wallowing in sanctimony and sentimental claptrap. Too bad.

Thank you for having placed an indelible underscore on what was once a fine opinion magazine that had become a bad job. Thank you also for taking the heat on showing up a collection of scoundrels that otherwise are never, ever held to accountability for their mis and malfeasance.
Keep up the good work.

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

The comments section is filled too full by those cranks who ascribe all the problems of humanity to Jewish hands. They are delusional, but certainly are useful for neutralizing serious critique of Likudnik policies. I wouldn't take any solace in having marginal folks like that being my defenders. I find it interesting that many are also hostile to Christianity. I suppose that they find it too Jewish. I note that recent congressional hearings posited that Christianity could be a bar to serving in government as well. This is a road that leads to major trouble.

SolontoCroesus > , October 3, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals. I recently had to do something like that in regards to some different more personal issues myself, as I had momentarily lost perspective due to emotional involvement, and I valued truth at least this time more than my ego. The outcome was good and I was forgiven for my lapse, and I didn't violate my integrity either. You can choose not to publish this comment, as it is somewhat personal. God bless.

In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals

.

This explication of Dr. Giraldi's position is very well done.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to "rewrite the article."
Fran Macadam, you cite a personal situation in which, if I'm not over interpreting, you issued a mea culpa. You stated that you did so because you had "lost perspective;" apparently you reined in "ego" and were "forgiven."

The example of your personal situation in conjunction with your suggestion that Phil "rewrite" the article highlights all the reasons why neither Phil nor any American who upholds American principles and interests agains what they may consider infringements by another set of individuals who advocate for the interests of a foreign government, should do so: Why should someone who is an American, and who supports and defends American interests, seek "forgiveness" from the offending party(ies)?

Did the authors of the Declaration of Independence struggle to rein in their uppityness and ego-driven perspective (i.e. self-interest) when they set out to
"assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them?"

When Vladimir Jabotinsky arrived in the USA in January, 1935, a reporter asked him,
""How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?"
"By demanding it," Jabotinsky said quietly."

http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour

Why should Americans be any less firm in their demand that the United States be the "true homeland of the American people," above all else?

Jabotinsky never rewrote his intention to displace Palestinians; rather, he doubled-down, crafting the Iron Wall policy; Dennis Ross has never sought forgiveness for his "emotional attachment" to Israel (so intense that he chaired the JCPPPI) or abusing his position in US government to advance Israel's interests.

@ 5. Nicholas Flavius mentioned E Michael Jones.

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/#comment-2029315

In one of his video lectures Jones discussed how Catholics

"love to internalize the commands of their oppressor. He loves to be considered a good person in the eyes of people who are his enemy, and as a result he becomes completely ineffective."

Jones then reminds his audience that Catholics are enjoined to "love your enemy." And so he "loves Jews."
The implication is clear: We have to be as certain as Jabotinsky what we stand for, and we must not be cowed by the adversary; in fact, we should clarify our thinking to the point that we understand who the adversary is, and having clarified our relative positions, we must assertively speak our truth -- in love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obtgaZ97Kdc

polskijoe > , October 3, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam The comments section is filled too full by those cranks who ascribe all the problems of humanity to Jewish hands. They are delusional, but certainly are useful for neutralizing serious critique of Likudnik policies. I wouldn't take any solace in having marginal folks like that being my defenders. I find it interesting that many are also hostile to Christianity. I suppose that they find it too Jewish. I note that recent congressional hearings posited that Christianity could be a bar to serving in government as well. This is a road that leads to major trouble. Problem groups

a)Neoconservatives (Jewish, Christian, other).
b)"Progressive" SJW (Jewish, Christian, atheist, other).

Jews

"Big Jews" are overrepresented in the positions of power (media, financiers)
"Small Jews" majority vote for those two groups. (most their cons are neocon, most of their liberals are progressives).

Fran Macadam > , October 3, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus


In fact, to more accurately reflect your views, why not rewrite the article now? I believe it's not yet too late, and in fact would help the cause of truth and a more peaceful world, our most important goals
.

This explication of Dr. Giraldi's position is very well done.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to "rewrite the article."
Fran Macadam, you cite a personal situation in which, if I'm not over interpreting, you issued a mea culpa. You stated that you did so because you had "lost perspective;" apparently you reined in "ego" and were "forgiven."

The example of your personal situation in conjunction with your suggestion that Phil "rewrite" the article highlights all the reasons why neither Phil nor any American who upholds American principles and interests agains what they may consider infringements by another set of individuals who advocate for the interests of a foreign government, should do so: Why should someone who is an American, and who supports and defends American interests, seek "forgiveness" from the offending party(ies)?

Did the authors of the Declaration of Independence struggle to rein in their uppityness and ego-driven perspective (i.e. self-interest) when they set out to
"assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them?"

When Vladimir Jabotinsky arrived in the USA in January, 1935, a reporter asked him,
""How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?"
"By demanding it," Jabotinsky said quietly."
http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour
Why should Americans be any less firm in their demand that the United States be the "true homeland of the American people," above all else?

Jabotinsky never rewrote his intention to displace Palestinians; rather, he doubled-down, crafting the Iron Wall policy; Dennis Ross has never sought forgiveness for his "emotional attachment" to Israel (so intense that he chaired the JCPPPI) or abusing his position in US government to advance Israel's interests.

@ 5. Nicholas Flavius mentioned E Michael Jones.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/#comment-2029315
In one of his video lectures Jones discussed how Catholics


"love to internalize the commands of their oppressor. He loves to be considered a good person in the eyes of people who are his enemy, and as a result he becomes completely ineffective."
Jones then reminds his audience that Catholics are enjoined to "love your enemy." And so he "loves Jews."
The implication is clear: We have to be as certain as Jabotinsky what we stand for, and we must not be cowed by the adversary; in fact, we should clarify our thinking to the point that we understand who the adversary is, and having clarified our relative positions, we must assertively speak our truth -- in love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obtgaZ97Kdc It might surprise you, so thoroughly uninformed as you are, wilfully or otherwise, that there are millions of Americans who are Jewish, and their American citizenship and humanity at least equal to yours and mine.

And yes, some of them can be as mistaken just as we are capable of as well.

[Oct 04, 2017] Elizabeth K bler-Ross' five stages of grief, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance are important for understanding not only individual behavior when we are faced with personal loss but entire societies and civilizations

Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

JNDillard > , October 4, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

Elizabeth Kübler-Ross' five stages of grief, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance are important for understanding not only individual behavior when we are faced with personal loss but entire societies and civilizations.

At this point Lieberman, Israel, the CIA, the US deep state, NATO and the EU are still fluctuating between denial and anger. The anger isn't even totally authentic yet; it is still mostly "Big Bad Wolf" winning by intimidation anger.

As it starts to dawn on these good people in the West that they are seriously screwed, we will begin to see authentic anger emerge.

That is, of course, the most dangerous stage, because that is when the sense of threat to hubris, arrogance, assumed privilege, control and power is greatest. We will mostly have to rely on cooler heads, like Putin, Xi, and Assad, to pull us through without WWIII.

You will know that we are through the worst when these disciples of freedom and democracy start wanting to do some authentic, serious bargaining, of the type where they actually have to give up something valuable. They are only play bargaining at this point. You can see the same thing with the US "bargaining" with N. Korea and Iran as with Syria; nowhere near actually bargaining.

Kurdistan will have to clearly be impossible and the Americans on the verge of being forced out before there is anything like serious bargaining.

If Putin, Xi, and Assad refuse to take the first, pathetic excuses for offers and instead recognize that they never would be getting serious negotiations if these folks had any cards whatsoever left to play, they will be able to watch the collapse of the West.

[Oct 04, 2017] Diaspora is typically more nationalistic then residents of the particular country. This is true for example for Israeli, Ukranian, armenian, Georgian and other Diaspora in the USA

Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

Brother Nathanael Kapner, Website October 4, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

Dear Phil,

I speak as a former Jew, now an Orthodox Christian.

I grew up in an upper-middle class B'nai B'rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, 'I'm against all this war talk.' BUT with their fellow Jewish 'lantsmen' BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they're ALL for war against Israel's perceived enemies.

Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our 'religion' that what's bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.

+Brother Nathanael Kapner

[Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

Highly recommended!
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump.

It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue.

On September 6 the NYT asserted :

Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign, which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election.

Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.

If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved that.

Today the NYT says that the ads were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:

There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid ads

No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence" campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.

With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of "election manipulation" falls further apart:

Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after, the company said

The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election victory?

More details via the Wall Street Journal:

Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.

Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed. Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads ran after the election.

All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ... designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?

No.

But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held in reserve for future use.

Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political influence op.

The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook mini-ads for them.

A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized.

This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.

We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:

The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice.

"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."

The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their Macedonian friends were running on.

With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague information keeps its name in the news.

After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.

Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum".

The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war against the people of the United States!

You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!

Samantha Power @SamanthaJPower - 3:45 PM - 3 Oct 2017

This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by "demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo

It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.

Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM | Permalink

nmb | Oct 3, 2017 2:20:52 PM | 1

As Shock Therapy failed miserably in the 90s, the neocon dynasty seeks now direct confrontation with Russia
Jackrabbit | Oct 3, 2017 2:32:24 PM | 2
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .

Taxi | Oct 3, 2017 2:32:34 PM | 3
Oh dear intrepidus, why are you still talking about MSM's favorite weapon of mass distraction?

Even though you make a fine point or two, at this stage, you're actually adding to the whirling stupidity by indulging it it yourself, methinks.

I'm so very, very over Russiagate and it's non-existent tentacles. Pfft!

Grieved | Oct 3, 2017 2:49:24 PM | 4
Thanks, b.

You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for gain.

The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.

Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for their gain, not ours.

We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.

It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta characteristics like never before.

Anon | Oct 3, 2017 2:49:39 PM | 5
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.

What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this nonsense.

the pair | Oct 3, 2017 3:07:19 PM | 6
$3 ads on facebook seen by nobody:

"russian meddling! their puppies hate our freedom!"

pharmaceutical ads on every evening news show and boeing/lockheed sponsoring the "p"bs news hour?"

"nothing to see here! take off your tin foil hat you f_cking alex jones putinbot!!!!"

you'd think by now most americans would realize the actual threat is other americans. the rest of the world realized it long ago.

sejomoje | Oct 3, 2017 3:08:47 PM | 7
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a response.

But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues. Independence has been made quaint.

karlof1 | Oct 3, 2017 3:10:42 PM | 8
Hi Grieved--

I posted this link at the Vegas thread, but the item's contents are valid here too, and speaks to the content of your above comment, https://sputniknews.com/viral/201710031057912410-google-facebook-youtube-vegas-fake-news/

somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.

But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.

Like the double hoax of " The War of Worlds broadcast ".

The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013, Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers. ... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths, including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio, a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the ground.
ashley albanese | Oct 3, 2017 3:13:06 PM | 10
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the 'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Lea | Oct 3, 2017 3:42:35 PM | 11
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.

The "Russiadunnit" thingy has turned into a business in the US. And when a new market is launched in the US, as people depend on it for their living and careers, it generally doesn't go away.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/28/the-slimy-business-of-russia-gate/

OJS | Oct 3, 2017 3:45:59 PM | 12
god bless amerika

somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9
The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a joke. whole page on WooW: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/

specific could it happen again? http://www.radiolab.org/story/91624-could-it-happen-again-and-again/

c1ue | Oct 3, 2017 3:58:38 PM | 14
Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
Christian Chuba | Oct 3, 2017 3:58:49 PM | 15
Russian Trolls outed as kids from Oregon: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-latest-fake-news-panic-appears-to-be-fake-news-w506396
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it appears....

The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's" tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...

The group was most likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "

Christian Chuba | Oct 3, 2017 4:00:46 PM | 16
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be shunned for life for one bad story?
Kalen | Oct 3, 2017 4:03:18 PM | 17
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.

There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything else plays the book of provocateurs.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 4:13:28 PM | 18
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....

And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)

Don Bacon | Oct 3, 2017 4:13:47 PM | 19

Lucky for us that television "news" doesn't use this business model. /s
Pnyx | Oct 3, 2017 5:02:54 PM | 20
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B? Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
Mina | Oct 3, 2017 5:05:12 PM | 21
https://mobile.twitter.com/dgaytandzhieva/status/913545591757697024
brian | Oct 3, 2017 5:09:39 PM | 22
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump.

This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders

https://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482X

those who dont obey orders: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/

Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 5:36:59 PM | 23
@ Posted by: Pnyx | Oct 3, 2017 5:02:54 PM | 20

This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...

Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ... and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the "remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ... all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...

It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account ... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?

Lochearn | Oct 3, 2017 6:43:01 PM | 24
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which included the following referring to the Catalan people:

"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement, inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."

"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"

Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned, which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.

ToivoS | Oct 3, 2017 7:32:04 PM | 25
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 7:43:29 PM | 26
I'm waiting for the expose of the Russian mail-order bride business (Do they still exist?)
ab initio | Oct 3, 2017 8:29:04 PM | 27
Very good analysis.

The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues.

ben | Oct 3, 2017 8:30:46 PM | 28
Jackrabbit @ 2: Yep!!

And here is another part to the puzzle:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19516:Empire-Files%3A-The-Hidden-Purging-of-Millions-of-Voters

Chipnik | Oct 3, 2017 8:42:54 PM | 29
Your answer can be found ...right ...here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc7kskox
james | Oct 3, 2017 8:44:05 PM | 30
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...

"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is this a position you share?

MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the next JCPOA guideline.

The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria. Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.

I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that determination when he's ready to do so."

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/10/274592.htm

[Oct 02, 2017] On Catalonia's Referendum

Notable quotes:
"... Some people in Catalonia, a rich and culturally distinct area in north-east of Spain, want to secede from the larger country. According to polls (pdf) less than half of the people in the area support the move. The local government prepared for a referendum and called for a local vote. ..."
"... Catalonia has a GDP per capita of some $33,580/year. For Spain as a whole the GDP per capita is $26,643/year. Many factors account for the difference. Catalonia has an advantages in climate, in the vicinity of the French border, the high attractiveness for tourists with its capital Barcelona and its beaches. It has a well developed industry. But the "rest of Spain" is also, by far, its biggest market. ..."
"... In general the splitting off of sub-states from the bigger, established nations weakens both. It is easier for outside forces to manipulated smaller states than larger ones. While the motives in this or that case are understandable, they are also, in my view, shortsighted. ..."
"... It's contradictory and ridiculous. Propagating for "independence" while staying within the gargantuan Borg-collective EU doesn't make any sense whatsoever. One also has to wonder were the usual suspects are in this case. Soros? ..."
"... It is possible that Madrid has sent in the police because other countries in Spain's neighbourhood (hint, hint) fear that Catalonian independence may be a precedent for moves towards self-government and separation in their own territories and are leaning on the Spanish to stop the Catalans. It is possible also that austerity programs adopted by governments in various European countries are helping to drive separation and independence movements. These movements potentially threaten EU unity. ..."
"... if this would be some ex-soviet county or Asian or African country all the hell broken loose for "right to vote" and for "independence". The world master's would call emergency meeting for the Security Council and unanimously vote in for demand of that "people". ..."
"... It'll be interesting to see if all the trolls agitating for Barzanistan independence will be out again in force here...and with the same level of hysteria... I wager they will be conspicuous by their absence... When it comes to secession movements, the key word is 'targeted'... Good for Kosovo...bad for South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Crimea... Good for Iraqi and Syrian Kurds...bad for Turkish Kurds... Good for Bosnia splitting from Yugoslavia...bad for Serbs splitting from Bosnia... Is anyone still fooled...? ..."
"... Actually it is 38.6% [youth unemployment] according to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ but you would not that from Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/macroeconomic-imbalances-procedure/youth-unemployment-rate ..."
"... "Then the U.S. came down like a sledgehammer again on Yugoslavia when on November 5, 1990 Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. A section of this law, without previous warning, cut off all aid, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within 6 months. Also, the law demanded separate elections in each of the republics that made up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. In February 1991 the Council of Europe also demanded that Yugoslavia hold multi-party elections or face an economic blockade." Death sentence has been made the US. Need more? ..."
"... Catalonian independence Referendum it is illegal (against the Spanish constitution) have no warranties of any kind, and will be cooked as needed in order to get more subsides and money from the government in Madrid. It is used by nationalistic politicians as a smoke curtain to hide behind in order not to be put to jail after 30 years of corruption. They are not called unofficially the 3% commission Party for nothing. ..."
"... Also say that Catalonian GDP it is actually 17% of Spain's GDP, with about 15% population of Spain. Who's subsidizing who's it is not clear. But related to Spain's External Debt, Catalonia account for about 25 % of it, not to mention 1000s of business have left (and are leaving the region every year) for other parts of Spain since at least 20 years. ..."
"... Before talking of secession check facts. The Catalans don't want to be out the EU, just to have a different relation with Spain. No big deal if not for big money. ..."
"... Ah, yes, than to support "independence" of the Yugoslav republics BND and CIA started to ship weapons trough Austria and Hungary. The Serbs had been already armed to the teeth from depot of ex army. ..."
"... Helmut Kohl and Genscher (US puppets) actively participated and hastily recognized independence of Slovenia. The US' puppet Milosevic (via Lawrence Eaagleburger) and Serbian establishment was all the way to dismantle Yugoslavia. ..."
"... It is funny word "legal" or "illegal". According to the west political philosophy, Vox Populi is Vox Dei so what is legal or illegal it is matter of the power and who has monopole on power (security forces), who interpreting the law. ..."
"... Second thing since the PP is typical capitalist party with only aim to serve foreign financial centers and looting own people I very much doubt they are into legality of any kind. This is power struggle, where perception and rhetoric and emotions are very important in order to "win". ..."
"... Rajoy is ex Lehman Brothers executive. Need to say more? ..."
"... It is even more disturbing considering direct similarities between Crimea and Donbass events of 2014 where Nazi central government violently suppressed local authorities responding to local people demand for autonomy or independence, freedom from fascism. ..."
"... Regardless of political advantages right of people to self determination is in the UN charter and unfortunate moral relativism expressed by b is not serving over all goal of ending global western hegemony of oligarchic class. ..."
"... Catalonia indeps. seek to become a 'new country' that would replicate the EU model: the rich country loves its folklore - language, costume, habits, etc.- and does not pay for the poor elsewhere through taxation, only thru negotiated contribution to 'solidarity' or other voluntary participatory funds. -- See e.g. in EU, Germany and Greece. ..."
"... At the same time, the EU has always had the aim of 'regionalising' areas for them to come under the remit of the new Central Command (EU Brussels), thus gradually diluting the power of the 'old' Nation-State(s), for now a stealthy process. ..."
"... Why has Spain has been so heavy handed? Perhaps because of what happened during the Greek crisis? Recall that Tsipras called a referendum whose result was surprisingly anti-EU. "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties" - Jean-Claude Juncker, EU Commission President ..."
"... How would you know if US succumbed to "German pressure"? What I remember is the "international community" gave Yugoslavia an offer they could not possibly accept. Typical Mafia governance, per the Judeo-Roman (the actual correct term for the Western civilization, an not the incoherent Judeo-Christian) Regime. ..."
"... There is a saying in Iran: A fool throws a stone in a well and 40 wise men can't take it out. ..."
"... I did so for a very simple reason. The European nations had in the previous 25 years destroyed the nation of Yugoslavia. Then in 1999 NATO went to war against Serbia to give the province of Kosovo independence. Not only that but the Spaniard Javier Solana was the one who pushed NATO into attacking Serbia because it would not give independence to Kosovo. My reaction to Javier -- eat dirt asshole, what goes around comes around. Now it is Catalonias turn to gain independence. ..."
"... "If I remember correctly the U S was inclined originally to help keep Yugoslavia together but it was German pressure..." Very laughable, so client state an issue order to hegemonic power. Germans FP is not run by Germans, when we are talking about political strategic decisions that have affect on international order. Germany is not the creator it is followers. Secondly, Germany is no such power that can cause calamity of such proportion either in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Anywhere. ..."
"... As for US help, god help those who US is helping. The US started with dismantling of Yugoslavia in 1984 (or immediately after Tito death), and by cultivation of the Serbian elite (by Zimmmeran, Eagleburger, Scowcroft), investment in Serbia and exporting Yugo cars, handguns from Zastava etc. in the US. And wide "cooperation" of Universities from US with Serbian one. ..."
"... Does this equation hold? NATO + Stasi = NWO ..."
"... My guess is that politicians on both sides are doing what they do best - stay in power by wipping up nationalist feelings. ..."
"... Once again as is becoming far too apparent on this board we many posts from people arguing for what suits them personally. American posters whose slow indoctrination against a united Europe is from America's hypocrisy in enjoying the advantages of a simple market whilst fearing the huge economic and political power a truly united Europe will eventuate in, support Catalans because like Agent Orange they feel more secure when Europe is weakened. ..."
"... On the other hand euros who like united Europe in principle but rightly resent the neoliberal monolith the EU has morphed into, oppose the Catalan secession because they are concerned about further EU destabilization. That is foolish Catalonia would stay part of the EU and any reformed EU must decentralize some decision making to better reflect the local circumstances, while it does a much better job of becoming more 'unitary' in other ways. Yes many Germans hate that idea because they have been enjoying the German imperialism by stealth which is the current EU model, but unless they do become much more understanding of the economic injustices that current EU policies exacerbate, there will be no EU and if that happens these issues will stop being sorted by ballot and go back to the 'old way' of Europeans killing each other in the pursuit of economic advantage. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Some people in Catalonia, a rich and culturally distinct area in north-east of Spain, want to secede from the larger country. According to polls (pdf) less than half of the people in the area support the move. The local government prepared for a referendum and called for a local vote.

Polling stations were set up for today. But Spanish laws do not allow for such polls or a separation. Catalonia, like other Spanish regions, already has a good degree of autonomy. If Catalonia were to secede the Basque areas in the north would likely follow. Spain would fall apart. Under Spanish law the referendum is illegal. The central government sent police to prevent the procedure. Street melees ensued.

A lot of mistakes have been made by the central government. It was stubborn in negotiations. It reacted too late to - at least partially - reasonable demands. Its insensitivity only incited resistance to it. But it is also responsible for the country as a whole. The behavior of local government is not much better. It is just as conservative, in its own way, as the government in Madrid.

Catalonia has a GDP per capita of some $33,580/year. For Spain as a whole the GDP per capita is $26,643/year. Many factors account for the difference. Catalonia has an advantages in climate, in the vicinity of the French border, the high attractiveness for tourists with its capital Barcelona and its beaches. It has a well developed industry. But the "rest of Spain" is also, by far, its biggest market.

A richer part of the country does not want to subsidize the poorer ones. But it still wants to profit from them.

In general the splitting off of sub-states from the bigger, established nations weakens both. It is easier for outside forces to manipulated smaller states than larger ones. While the motives in this or that case are understandable, they are also, in my view, shortsighted.

During the Spanish civil war in the 1930s Catalonia and Basque areas were the last Republican strongholds against the winning right-wing Nationalists. That history lives on in today's conflict. No one should wish to repeat it.

Anon | Oct 1, 2017 6:22:41 AM | 1

Its interesting to watch western MSM and western politician doing everything to smear the right of local people to establish their own state.

And of course, Putin is blamed for this event also!

Mina | Oct 1, 2017 6:36:27 AM | 2
French gov radio explaining as if it was just a light joke that "pictures of people with bloody faces started to circulate on social media" and that the police shot rubber bullets. https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/journal-de-12h30/journal-de-12h30-dimanche-1-octobre-2017
at 2'

Imagine if it was in Russia or Syria..

Lea | Oct 1, 2017 6:49:00 AM | 3
It is easier for outside forces to manipulated smaller states than larger ones.

I respectfully disagree. If memory serves, places like Switzerland, which is not in the EU, or tiny Cuba defend themselves very well. And don't see that Russia has been particularly easy to manipulate after the general plundering that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union was stopped by Putin.

On the other hand, the EU countries bloc, which would count as one large country, is mercilessly manipulated by its non-elected bureaucrats, corporate lobbies, and exterior influences (see the recent CETA, which was imposed without any democratic process whatsoever).

But yes, at least momentarily, the breaking-up of a country is bound to economically weaken its seceded parts, which is something different. IMHO.

mia | Oct 1, 2017 6:57:39 AM | 5
It's contradictory and ridiculous. Propagating for "independence" while staying within the gargantuan Borg-collective EU doesn't make any sense whatsoever. One also has to wonder were the usual suspects are in this case. Soros?
Jen | Oct 1, 2017 7:10:36 AM | 6
Unfortunately Madrid's reaction to the referendum - which the Spanish government should have foreseen as early as the Scottish independence referendum back in 2015 - has probably helped to legitimise the Catalonian referendum and made it look more important than it actually is to the Catalonian public. Madrid should have advised the public that the referendum was illegal under Spanish law, explained its case as to why, and left targeted would-be voters pondering the consequences if they had chosen to participate.

I would like to say also that it's not like B to simply say that Madrid sent the police in to disrupt the referendum and leave it at that, and that nations splitting into two or more smaller states become more open to outside interference and manipulation. It is possible that Madrid has sent in the police because other countries in Spain's neighbourhood (hint, hint) fear that Catalonian independence may be a precedent for moves towards self-government and separation in their own territories and are leaning on the Spanish to stop the Catalans. It is possible also that austerity programs adopted by governments in various European countries are helping to drive separation and independence movements. These movements potentially threaten EU unity.

0use4msm | Oct 1, 2017 7:13:24 AM | 7
Separation and holding a referendum are two different things. Separation may not be allowed according to the Spanish constitution, so the Spanish government could simply ignore the result, just like referendum results are nearly always ignored by the government in my own country (the Netherlands). But how can the mere act of placing pieces of paper in a box itself be considered illegal, to be answered with by police batons and rubber bullets?
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 7:14:52 AM | 8
There were two interesting programs on France24 about the Catalan referendum. From what i gathered, the president of Catalunya said the latest polls they had were not even giving a majority to the yes, but the refusal of Madrid to let a democratic referendum was worsening the situation. Catalunya has been trying to beg Madrid for discussions for years on several issues but it seems that the king and the Madrid gov are just so corrupt they refuse to open files normally.
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 7:22:24 AM | 9
"Catalonia has an advantages in climate, in the vicinity of the French border, the high attractiveness for tourists of its capital Barcelona and its beaches." ???
oh really, you mean the Costa Brava etc do not attract millions of Brits/Germans/Scandinavian countries? Not to mention the Saudis who land with a dozen of planes each year? But where is the money going?
el sid | Oct 1, 2017 7:39:18 AM | 10
Don't believe the hype. Madrid (PP) and Catalunya (CiU) are equally corrupt. In fact CiU no longer exists as all it's party offices have been embargoed by the judges. But jolly useful for distracting people from austerity programmes. (People who lose jobs, on average, earn 12% less in their new jobs in Spain).

The NWO plan is to bring down the nation states. Worked jolly well in Yugoslavia, nearly worked in Syria. Glued to the telly, so can't give links, but recently Thierry Meyssan reported on a speech by Princeling Macron. In the future we will no longer have nation states, just city states. Germany and Italy became Nation States in the 19th century because they realised that city states had no future, no defence, no "sovereignty".

john | Oct 1, 2017 7:56:39 AM | 11
constitutional crisis is the new global malignancy, and it's a lumpy one, like hemorrhoids.
Debsisdead | Oct 1, 2017 8:02:35 AM | 13
One of my favourite places in the world to hang out is a former fishing village about I dunno, 60 Kilometers north of Barcelona, a town called Cadaques and a staunchly Catalan village. Many of the tourists who have flooded the joint speak better Spanish than the locals who still prefer the Catalan language in their day to day conversations.

When I first visited, sometime in the 80's, France still banned Catalan festivals (Catalonia per se is divided pretty much in half on the Mediterranean coast between France & Spain), so French Catalans would come south to towns like Cadaques to celebrate their culture. The locals ripped them off blind and took great amusement in doing so. Most of the French Catalans had lost their language, so for many of them it was sorta like the way the Scots families in Aotearoa celebrated "the Highland Games" a sort of dedicated hobby, whereas for Catalans still held captive by the Madrid/Castillan oppressor who they last fought less than 50 years before, this was no hobby, it was their life.

The similarities between england's conquest of Scotland Wales and Ireland, and Castile's butchery and oppression of Catalonia and the Basque Country is strong.

The chief difference being that Culloden was fought 200 years ago and the Spanish Civil War less than 100 years. The wounds are still fresh and as Catalans describe it, the portion of the Constitution which prevents their self determination is thanks to General Franco who was meant to have retired by then, but his meglomania had him insist the new constitution which he was not meant to be involved in drafting, included provisions to keep Basque and Catalan kissing Castile's arse.

The Catalans have always been more, shall we say indirect, when it comes to resisting than the Basques, but they are no less determined, I have no doubt that Rajoy's stupidity in cranking up opposition to the ballot in order to distract from investigations of widespread corruption in the People's Party will guarantee an independent Catalonia sooner, rather than later.

Just as I have no doubt that the englander's crazy decision to bolt from the EU rather than fight to alter it will actually precipitate many of the changes the EU needs to make. A reformed EU will mean that many of the artificial nation states put together by greedy euroroyalty will wither and reduce to their constituent parts - because well run smaller states are always more likely to provide a better more humanist way of life than the mega nations with populations closing on 100 million, where even those states which claim to be 'democracies' are controlled by a political elite who rarely interact with those outside their clique. Trying to communicate with functionaries of a mega state makes attempting to get human service outta Microsoft, Apple or Google, a piece of piss in comparison.

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 8:06:31 AM | 14
if this would be some ex-soviet county or Asian or African country all the hell broken loose for "right to vote" and for "independence". The world master's would call emergency meeting for the Security Council and unanimously vote in for demand of that "people".

But the country in case is Spain, NATO member, EU member. The country that belong to the Western and Cristian "civilization". Secession is no-no either as a word or an event.

Someone posted that this would jeopardize the EU. I would say to hell with EU if this going to do harm to blood suckers that I am for Catalan independence.

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 8:15:12 AM | 15
el sid | Oct 1, 2017 7:39:18 AM | 10

Difference PP is Franco's party. It is fascists party. Second thing, that "B" posted about the Spain's GDP $33,580 is just nonsense. Globalist love to post these figures as a measure of (fictional) wealth. Hey, B go and ask youth in Spain (~25%) what's their "GDP". "B" also mention the Constitution. I wonder who wrote that and when?

flankerbandit | Oct 1, 2017 8:18:35 AM | 16
It'll be interesting to see if all the trolls agitating for Barzanistan independence will be out again in force here...and with the same level of hysteria... I wager they will be conspicuous by their absence... When it comes to secession movements, the key word is 'targeted'... Good for Kosovo...bad for South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Crimea... Good for Iraqi and Syrian Kurds...bad for Turkish Kurds... Good for Bosnia splitting from Yugoslavia...bad for Serbs splitting from Bosnia... Is anyone still fooled...?
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 8:20:44 AM | 17
Actually it is 38.6% [youth unemployment] according to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ but you would not that from Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/macroeconomic-imbalances-procedure/youth-unemployment-rate
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 8:32:42 AM | 20
https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/5114

https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-disinformation-on-the-war-in-yugoslavia-the-dayton-peace-accords-revisited/899

"Then the U.S. came down like a sledgehammer again on Yugoslavia when on November 5, 1990 Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. A section of this law, without previous warning, cut off all aid, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within 6 months. Also, the law demanded separate elections in each of the republics that made up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. In February 1991 the Council of Europe also demanded that Yugoslavia hold multi-party elections or face an economic blockade." Death sentence has been made the US. Need more?

But you have no brain since you read and "understand" selectively.

F.MAN | Oct 1, 2017 8:46:34 AM | 21
you said:

"During the Spanish civil war in the 1930s Catalonia and Basque areas were the last Republican strongholds against..."

you are falling into the independentist rethoric. Pais basco was in the hands of nationalist as early as 1937 at the end of the first year of war (more than half of the Pais Vasco was Pro Nationalist because of religion and ideology) please inform yourself better before write thing like this.

Catalonia lasted till the end, because of geographical consideration (it was in the rearguard, deep into Republican lines) but with its typical nationalistic ideology it just made thing quite complicated for the republic to defend itself. Not to mention a a civil war inside the civil war (see "sucesos de Mayo")
confronted with national troops it simply couldn't stand and fell apart after the Ebro Offensive.

Catalonian independence Referendum it is illegal (against the Spanish constitution) have no warranties of any kind, and will be cooked as needed in order to get more subsides and money from the government in Madrid. It is used by nationalistic politicians as a smoke curtain to hide behind in order not to be put to jail after 30 years of corruption. They are not called unofficially the 3% commission Party for nothing.

Also say that Catalonian GDP it is actually 17% of Spain's GDP, with about 15% population of Spain. Who's subsidizing who's it is not clear. But related to Spain's External Debt, Catalonia account for about 25 % of it, not to mention 1000s of business have left (and are leaving the region every year) for other parts of Spain since at least 20 years.

Things are not that clear, once you put an eye on the facts. Off course the Nationalist rhetoric is that with independence will come a Golden Age for Catalonia, but when did a politician tell the truth?

Mina | Oct 1, 2017 8:53:34 AM | 22
Before talking of secession check facts. The Catalans don't want to be out the EU, just to have a different relation with Spain. No big deal if not for big money.
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 8:53:47 AM | 23
Ah, yes, than to support "independence" of the Yugoslav republics BND and CIA started to ship weapons trough Austria and Hungary. The Serbs had been already armed to the teeth from depot of ex army.

Helmut Kohl and Genscher (US puppets) actively participated and hastily recognized independence of Slovenia. The US' puppet Milosevic (via Lawrence Eaagleburger) and Serbian establishment was all the way to dismantle Yugoslavia.

somebody | Oct 1, 2017 8:58:26 AM | 24
22
That exactly is the problem. Either there is a EU where countries redistribute income within the EU (as countries do within as in richer regions supporting poorer ones), then Catalonian and others independence is no problem. Or, as is, the exit of a region takes money out of the rest of the country. The current mood in Germany for a common EU economy is "no way".
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 9:03:27 AM | 25
What I don't understand is why the Catalans did not apply a B plan since yesterday. Assange say they blocked apps etc but why not distributing an envelope with a stamp, addressed to the Brussel Commission or any other international party. A few millions envelopes cannot be hidden under a carpet.
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 9:10:12 AM | 26
@F.MAN | Oct 1, 2017 8:46:34 AM | 21

"Catalonian independence Referendum it is illegal (against the spanish constitution)...."

It is funny word "legal" or "illegal". According to the west political philosophy, Vox Populi is Vox Dei so what is legal or illegal it is matter of the power and who has monopole on power (security forces), who interpreting the law.

Second thing since the PP is typical capitalist party with only aim to serve foreign financial centers and looting own people I very much doubt they are into legality of any kind. This is power struggle, where perception and rhetoric and emotions are very important in order to "win".

Blue | Oct 1, 2017 9:12:23 AM | 27
The Spanish government has overreacted to the referendum. The question is why? They should have let it go. The vote may have been no, and even if yes, it was unconstitutional and the Catalan gov't could do nothing. No one would recognize them.

Obviously, the vote was/is a negotiation tactic for more autonomy, not separation. The fascists in Madrid have made it a referendum on European democracy.

Kuerbovich | Oct 1, 2017 9:19:12 AM | 28
The economic driver is there, b. But not only. Spain is a complex nation of nations, that has been hold together by force. The last time the Spanish people tried to deal with democratically, through the Federal Republic of 1931 the army started a civil war whose effects, in terms of murder, torture and prison lasted way long after they won the war. People in Catalunya, Basque Country or Galicia were harassed and humiliated because of having a different language and culture other than Spanish. The Constitution of 1978, that opened the way to have a democratic Spain, was agreed between some formerly illegal political parties and the Franquista establishment, leaving to the king and to the army the protection of the unity of the country.

Since the politically-contral Constitutional Court mutilated the Catalan Stature if Autonomy, the Spanish government has kept its door closed to all Catalonian REI indications. Indeed, the Catalan government is plagued by corruption, as the Spanish ruling party is. But the bottom of the question is the right of the people to decide who should be ruling them. One can agree or not on the decision taken, but this right, to me, is undeniable and there always be people ready to fight for it

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 9:20:14 AM | 29
Rajoy is ex Lehman Brothers executive. Need to say more?
Kalen | Oct 1, 2017 9:25:01 AM | 30
B response seems disappointing. Completely ignores that Spain is a Catholic fascist country since Franco coup and civil war ended in 1939 only because Hitler support and German Luftwaffe , bombing civilians, before Nuremberg committing a war crime. should we forget about it Orwellian style?

It is even more disturbing considering direct similarities between Crimea and Donbass events of 2014 where Nazi central government violently suppressed local authorities responding to local people demand for autonomy or independence, freedom from fascism.

Regardless of political advantages right of people to self determination is in the UN charter and unfortunate moral relativism expressed by b is not serving over all goal of ending global western hegemony of oligarchic class.

Well, suppose defenders of democracy in the west and worshipping elections to the level of going to war in MENA to assure democratic elections and democratic rule , now eat their feces of gigantic hypocrisy. Police thugs beating up elderly people waiting to vote, Trump is silent, DEMS are silent, MSM is silent. What possible crime requiring police violence is casting a ballot?

Spain was and is a fascist state so is EU fascist emporium, those election looks identical to April 1933 election under Hitler emergency rule, tens of thousands voters were beaten or arrested by police at polling stations and that included various party members as well as the very candidates running in the election who were beaten and arrested while trying to cast a vote.(most still were elected while in prisoner)

All those phony defenders of democracy choked, only deafening silence, no word, no condemnation of police violence, no defending right to vote revealing themselves all of stooges of deep state run by oligarchic class set sim for mass extermination of population and terror.

And all of that what for? When simple declaration of illegality of the vote by Madrid would have suffice, why so desperate violent move that only will increase the number of Catalonians voting yes.

Here is the answer.

What most are missing is the fact that Madrid panic response is not about Catalonia it is about Basque country. The Catalonia issue in fact stems more from 2008 crisis and their carrying most of cost of Spanish recovery, they want to get better share of they money they send to Madrid and have been utterly ignored and disrespected by Madrid de facto fascist regime.

In fact like Scotland, [what killed their referendum] they want to stay in EU and probably last year referendum would have failed anyway so why not done then and got over with it last year.

It is because it would set a precedent of region leaving the Spain peacefully while Basque country was not able accomplish it for over several decades, as the only Spanish anti-fascist force to fight Franco fascists [liberation struggle continued by ETA] before and after WWII until 1975 and later fascists who just changed uniform for democrats.

The famous Picasso painting Guernica is about a Franco defiant Basque city leveled by German Luftwaffe [air force, killed hundreds] sent by Hitler to destroy democratically elected Republican government of Spain just a year or so before WWII stated in Sept 1939 while west was watching.

Dave S | Oct 1, 2017 9:43:11 AM | 31
For those of you who wish to hear an opinion that maybe somewhat different than the left leaning thing you read here. I offer this post from bionic mosquito http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.ca/2017/10/mes-que-un-club.html?m=1
Out of Istanbul | Oct 1, 2017 9:46:33 AM | 32
Why would any legal system centered around ensuring oligarchic control ever contain within it a "legal" means from exiting that system? Calling people to respect such laws is calling them to respect the rule of the master.
Noirette | Oct 1, 2017 9:51:37 AM | 33
politico has a potted recent legislative history while i'm not up on all the details it looks ok: http://www.politico.eu/article/catalonia-referendum-independence-timeline-how-did-we-get-here/

Yes b, the Central Gvmt. has been singularly rigid, disdainful and all-out dumb. Creatitivity zero. They seem to have made many mis-steps, no doubt escalating the pro-independence crowd.

Ex. A non-binding referendum is always a good idea, but was suspended by the Const. Court, as was a new form of the same, called some "participatory process".. but it went ahead anyway. (36% turnout, v. low, 80% for independ. 2014 see link.) The oppo to get some 'real' numbers on board, and have all the issues 'aired' was lost.

Catalonia indeps. seek to become a 'new country' that would replicate the EU model: the rich country loves its folklore - language, costume, habits, etc.- and does not pay for the poor elsewhere through taxation, only thru negotiated contribution to 'solidarity' or other voluntary participatory funds. -- See e.g. in EU, Germany and Greece.

At the same time, the EU has always had the aim of 'regionalising' areas for them to come under the remit of the new Central Command (EU Brussels), thus gradually diluting the power of the 'old' Nation-State(s), for now a stealthy process.

The Catalan indeps. are not radical pre-cursors here, prob. they were encouraged by the 'seeming' impact, success, of some color revolution play-books, the engineered identity or 'community' politics to split ppl, groups.

Rajoy is a Merkel pet and there is no way the EU will get involved with this potential regional break-away. Were Catalonia to become independent, it would have to apply to join the EU. Ouch.

see mia @ 5, jen @ 6, poster @ 7, mina, and el-sid @ 10 on city states.

Imho the breakaway impulse, like in many places, is fuelled in a large part by HIGH youth unemployment. Another topic for another day.

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 9:52:31 AM | 34
The Spanish (Fascist) Deep State: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/30/catalonia-cia-report-mossos-el-periodico/ All those false flags operation in Spain have a mark of a fascists.
Victor J | Oct 1, 2017 9:57:44 AM | 35
In the name of democracy I will not let you vote.
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 10:02:02 AM | 36
Now the French Prime Minister has waded into the debate and suggested an independent Catalonia could signal the end of Europe. He said on the radio channel La Ser: "It means in a certain way the end of what Europe is, which is a federation of nation states. "If one of these states decides to change its borders, the consequences can be very important at a time where Europe is fragile."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/859915/Catalonia-referendum-latest-news-independence-Spain-Manuel-Valls-end-of-Europe

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 10:04:04 AM | 37
I read the other day that Valonia (Belgian federal unit) send the best wishes to Catalans.
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 10:08:30 AM | 38
Huh...according to ex French PM ramifications and consequences of Catalan independence are way far reaching than the one would assume. That's might explain extreme and repressive measure from Madrid.
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 10:14:11 AM | 39
Also, the EU has not said a word since one year that the referendum has been announced for this month.(Initially for September and postponed)
Muslim Dude | Oct 1, 2017 10:16:02 AM | 40
1. I think that the Madrid government saw this as something they had to do in order to save Spain from "being destroyed" (as they would see it, as if they did allow the previous referendum a few years ago but this time the Catalan authorities had said they would essentially declare independence and take control of borders if the vote was in favour of independence).

2. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some pressure exerted by the Spanish military on the Madrid government. The military is acutely aware that it is heir to a state which was once the most powerful in the world (Charles V etc) and at its height ruled more territory than the current Russia occupies. Spain lost the Americas but the Spanish state in Madrid was always acutely aware of the fact that the part of Iberia which they ruled, excluding Portugal, was comprised of different ethno-linguistic groups which could, like Portugal, seek to secede.

This insecurity is what drove Franco's anti-Catalan policies of the mid-20th century.

A figure from the Spanish military did allude to military intervention a few years earlier.

3. The EU is clearly supporting Madrid with its conspicuous silence, whereas (as others had correctly pointed out) if it was in some ex-Soviet or non-white region, they would have been the foremost champions of "freedom" and "the right to democracy".

France also has Catalans (though their identity has been heavily diluted) in its borders but not only that Catalan is very similar to Occitan which was widely prevalent in the south of France and would get strengthened with the emergence of a Catalan state.

France's separatist issues also extend to Brittany and Corsica.

4. Most Catalans are opposed to independence because whilst they view themselves as a separate nation (culturally-linguistically) they still view themselves as part of Spain. They holiday in other parts of Spain, have Spanish (non-Catalan) relatives, friends, spouses, have studied and worked in other parts of Spain. However this issue is not merely about abstract and altruistic concepts of freedom and self-determination it can also be seen as dirty politicking by corrupt politicans from both Barcelona and Madrid.

The Catalan politicians most likely want to have the same sort of fiscal independence that the Basques have and are using the threat of independence/secession as a bogeyman with which to exact concessions from Madrid.

5. This doesn't detract from the fact that Madrid has been very irresponsible and due to its insecurity about the dissolution of Iberia's largest state has been very insensitive and harsh towards legitimate Catalan demands for greater freedom/autonomy which Catalans have actually tried to acquire within the framework of the Spanish legal structure.

Catalan separatists have never used violence.

6. What will happen?

I think ultimately Madrid will be forced to speak to Barcelona and some sort of agreement will have to be made whereby the Catalan region may get the same or slightly the same powers and status as the highly decentralized Basque region.

7. The US (CIA) media seem to be somewhat sympathetic towards the Catalans, hence possibly indicative of the often perceived US desire to weaken its EU rival.

pio | Oct 1, 2017 10:18:10 AM | 41
"At least half of the members of my party are members of the Catalan Friends of Israel Association. Israel is a democratic state, and we support the steps it takes for survival, and the survival of the Jewish people. We have no intention of criticizing what its government does. We seek cooperation with Israel, and we hope it will support our independence movement. It is clear that an independent Catalonia will be a close friend of Israel – there's no doubt about that."
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/catalan-leader-predicts-independence-in-about-two-years-and-close-friendship-with-israel-1.468285
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 10:19:05 AM | 42
But I doubt that Rajoy has made such decision on its own. I doubt he has guts for it, nor strength. He is just apparatchik. In addition he doesn't have loyalty except to globalists and money. Barcelona is too lucrative and rich to be leave alone. Some foreign factor must be involved in his decision making process.
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 10:23:47 AM | 43
Valls is not French Prime Minister, but former FM, and a Catalan binational.
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 10:26:14 AM | 44
houps, maybe i've foreseen something and some ppl might become "Catalan bi nationals"; just to say he is Catalan.
Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 10:28:52 AM | 45
" Most Catalans are opposed to independence because whilst they view themselves as a separate nation (culturally-linguistically) they still view themselves as part of Spain."

See this before write anything of that sort: http://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/sondeo-GAPS-preve-participacion-referendum_0_691531939.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eldiario.es%2Fcatalunya%2Fpolitica%2Fsondeo-GAPS-preve-participacion-referendum_0_691531939.html&edit-text=

Maybe your translation is different. ;) It seems to me that Madrid doing exactly what Barcelona need.

F.MAN | Oct 1, 2017 10:47:44 AM | 47
answering Chauncey Gardiner and comment 26
the questions is ...
1.- Do we live in a Country under the Rule of Law? or are we living in the Jungle...

if the answer is yes, there is a rule of Law, under which all citizens have equal rights and are equally accountable for their acts, then the Referendum is Illegal, and the politicians promoting it should be in jail. If the answer is that the rule of the Jungle is the good one, then there would be no referendum because they would have been in Jail long time ago.

Julian | Oct 1, 2017 10:53:09 AM | 48
The actions in Catalonia today show the true colours of the EUSSR. They also show why the UK was so wise to vote for so-called "Brexit". I predict a Catalan declaration on Tuesday - and that is when the fun will really start. First thing to look for would be La Liga expelling all Catalan clubs from the League effective immediately - which will throw European football into chaos for a start! Then the markets will likely start going a little crazy - particularly in Spain obviously!
Curtis | Oct 1, 2017 11:01:58 AM | 49
After reading b's bit, I knew there would be comparisons to other "breakaway" attempts especially from areas that are doing better economically or with resources like the Kurds in Iraq or the Benghazi area of Libya. Flankerbit caught the double standards at play. It's funny when some in the US suggest secession of either California or Texas or some other state.
Anon | Oct 1, 2017 11:15:55 AM | 51
Julian

Catalan referendum will probably yield a "NO" so why would they claim a declaration?

Mina | Oct 1, 2017 11:18:23 AM | 52
The point was that reading your post one believes he is the current FM and speaks about a political issue, while the reality is that he spoke/was asked because he often mention his roots (and is no longer FM)
Mina | Oct 1, 2017 11:30:07 AM | 53
Good twitter accounts to follow in this live: http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/live/2017/10/01/vote-sous-tension-en-catalogne-suivez-notre-direct_5194278_3214.html some of the security forces have refused to attack the people and have protected them against the guardia civile
Bob Beal | Oct 1, 2017 11:39:21 AM | 54
This statement shares the skepticism about this secessionist movement: Oppose the state crackdown on the Catalan independence referendum!
For working class unity! No to separatism in Spain! Statement of the International Committee of the Fourth International, 30 September 2017
On the eve of the October 1 independence referendum in Catalonia, Spain is in the throes of its deepest political crisis since the fall of the fascist Franco regime. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/30/cata-s30.html

and do the subjects of this article: "In Catalonia's 'red belt' leftwing veterans distrust the separatists" "Nationalism is not the answer to Spain's problems, say an older generation who fought against General Franco."

Excerpts (link at bottom):

"All four [interviewees] dismiss the independence movement as a distraction from more pressing social issues, claiming it has proved a useful smokescreen for the Catalan government's spending cuts.

""What's happening now is that everyone has been told that Spain is the origin of our problems," says Salas. "They are being fed a version of Catalan history that has nothing to do with reality and this has radicalised young people around independence..."

""It's about class. I don't have a problem with the person standing next to me, it's the one above me who's the problem.""

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/red-belt-catalonia-labour-movement-referendum

Anon | Oct 1, 2017 11:56:07 AM | 55
Disturbing video of the police brutality: [VIDEO] https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/914442627910705152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Personally I cant watch that from start to finish...
flankerbandit | Oct 1, 2017 12:15:36 PM | 56
Chauncey Gardiner @19 and 20...

What's your problem...?

As Curtis @49 observed, my comment @14 was about the double standards quite visible now...

As for Yugoslavia...I do not need to be lectured on that topic...see my comment 123 on the Barzanistan thread...also my 114 on same thread...

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/by-the-grace-of-israel-the-barzani-clan-and-kurdish-independence/comments/page/2/#comments

Mina | Oct 1, 2017 12:25:31 PM | 57
They have announced this referendum for a year, have been supported by major figures (Savall, the Barça); it is normal that the consultation can be held and the Spanish gov could simply have said "we won't recognize the results". This demonstration of violence shows the real face of the EU and will be one more nail in the coffin.
ab initio | Oct 1, 2017 12:27:05 PM | 59
b, you spend a lot of your time shitting on the US. Where is the outrage at the fascist gestapo tactics of the EU? Contrary to your claim, the last poll shows a huge surge in support for independence. https://mishtalk.com/2017/09/30/last-minute-poll-shows-huge-80-percent-surge-for-independence/

The Catalans were peacefully exercising their right to self-determination by coming out to vote today. The Spanish national police behaved like the goons they are at the behest of the EU & Spanish establishment. Yes, they are concerned that their precious EU project may fall apart! It will. It is only a matter of time.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/1o?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=refgoogle

What happens if the Catalan government announces that the majority voted to secede and declares independence? Are the EU goons gonna suppress it with military force?

ab initio | Oct 1, 2017 12:33:30 PM | 60
Julian @48

Exactly! Since the Spanish national guard created the chaos by attacking voters and stealing ballot boxes, a proper referendum with control of voting was not permitted. The Catalan authorities were consequently forced to inform the people that they could print the ballots at home and vote in any voting station. They can announce whatever result they want now as all the counting systems have been disabled by the Spanish national guard.

What does anyone think the Catalan authorities conducting the referendum are going to announce?

alaric | Oct 1, 2017 12:57:39 PM | 62
The proponents of the Catalonia referendum and independence present themselves as forces of democracy but they are the opposite. They have consistently failed to get even 50% support for independence and so they have proceeded with an illegal referendum on independence. Who is going to vote on that and who is going to count the votes (the independence movement and its supporters). The referendum is illegal and does not meet an criteria for fair voting. They are opposing democracy because they consistently lose when they go the democratic route.

That puts the Spanish government, which itself screwed up and handled this quite poorly, in a very difficult position but i think many will disagree with the course the central government has taken. Many Spaniards hate the Catalan independence seekers precisely for what they are doing today and because at the basis of the independence movement is the same consistent message: "We Catalan have more money than Spain so screw you Spain." Ah yes screw you Spain but keep paying us. That seriously pisses off a lot of Spanish and many would love to see Catalonia leave but sans the very beneficial relationship that Catalonia has with the rest of Spain now. Net: i doubt there will be an outpouring of sympathy for those participating in the referendum today from the rest of Spain.

ab initio | Oct 1, 2017 1:06:03 PM | 63
This is how the EU thugs behave. https://twitter.com/saulocorona/status/914531619310063617
ruralito | Oct 1, 2017 1:11:39 PM | 64
@31, Libertarianism is a euphemism for Gangsterism. What's to stop someone seeking "self-fulfilment" or "self-realization" from deciding that organizing and arming his own militia is the path to enlightenment? Erik Prince comes to mind. Jim Jones, another eg. Bibi Netanyahu fits the bill too.

And what the heck is bionicmosquito? toohipformyshirt?

Anon | Oct 1, 2017 1:21:26 PM | 65
ab initio

Assange have called on EU to condemn Spain's human rights violations. Silence is the answer. https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/914442627910705152

alaric | Oct 1, 2017 1:23:14 PM | 66
@ab initio

"This is how the EU thugs behave."

I would guess that most of those troops are from outside of Catalonia and as i posted many and perhaps most Spaniards are a wee bit annoyed with Catalonia's behavior which is seen as rather self centered, arrogant and illegal (cause it is illegal). Tensions are running high and the troops are probably going to behave in a less than kind manner. I really doubt the voters are just allowing the troops to close down polling stations and take voting machines sans a fight so I would ask what happened before the scenes in the video. The referendum is Illegal and the vote lacks impartiality and validation. Nonetheless, the Spanish government is handling this very, very poorly.

The best thing for the government would be to film what happens to police as they try to peacefully close down polling stations and to completely refrain from violence. That takes a pretty strong man to do because i bet the cops would get beaten up.

The Spanish press reporting on this is, as you might expect, very anti catalonia and they are listing the numerous violations and lack of transparency in the vote. The government should have allowed them to vote and refused to acknowledge the results.

Jackrabbit | Oct 1, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 67
Why has Spain has been so heavy handed? Perhaps because of what happened during the Greek crisis? Recall that Tsipras called a referendum whose result was surprisingly anti-EU. "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties" - Jean-Claude Juncker, EU Commission President
Curtis | Oct 1, 2017 1:43:13 PM | 69
the tourist view (Rick Steve's) https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/video/tv-show/barcelona-and-catalunya Quick referendum analysis (CaspianReport) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K56C2cpCQZM
likklemore | Oct 1, 2017 1:47:19 PM | 70
Mina @ 57

OR the Spanish government in Madrid could have followed Canada: Quebec twice voted to separate, in 1980 and 1995. Canada allowed the vote; National politicians and notables participated in the Quebec campaigns, presenting the case to remain in Canada. Madrid takes its orders from the Technocrats in Brussels. Today's brutality to stop the vote guarantees Catalan's urge for independence won't go away. Voting on Independence, Quebec Style.

ab initio | Oct 1, 2017 1:50:44 PM | 71
Alaric @66

The Boston Tea Party was illegal too!

Unlike the UK or Canada which allowed the Scots and Quebecois their right to vote, Spain did not. What should the Catalans have done? This did not happen overnight. They repeatedly asked the Spanish government to allow them to vote. If the referendum was open then it is quite possible the majority of Catalans would have voted to remain in Spain. With the authoritarian response of Spain hiding behind "legalism" they have now screwed the pooch and enabled Catalonia to claim the majority voted to secede.

Mieszko I | Oct 1, 2017 2:09:29 PM | 72
Whomever supports the Catalan "independence" should think long , and hard, about its purpose, as there a several Russian regions that could be instigated into doing the same. Also, if Catalonia has a democratic right to secede, then what about the "Kurdish" regions of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria ?

Democracy is longer what it seems, as people can be goaded into voting for their own suicide. It has proven itself to be a easily manipulated, failed system of governance. Be careful what you wish for.

ashley albanese | Oct 1, 2017 2:33:01 PM | 75
Chauncey gardiner 20

If I remember correctly the US was inclined originally to help keep Yugoslavia together but it was German pressure, largely on Croatia's part that tipped the US - I suspect grudgingly - into her actions with Germany on the Balkans .

nobody | Oct 1, 2017 2:43:27 PM | 77
If I remember correctly ...

Posted by: ashley albanese | Oct 1, 2017 2:33:01 PM | 75

How would you know if US succumbed to "German pressure"? What I remember is the "international community" gave Yugoslavia an offer they could not possibly accept. Typical Mafia governance, per the Judeo-Roman (the actual correct term for the Western civilization, an not the incoherent Judeo-Christian) Regime.

There is a saying in Iran: A fool throws a stone in a well and 40 wise men can't take it out.

And here we are ..

ToivoS | Oct 1, 2017 2:45:48 PM | 78
A few years ago I attended a big Catalonian demonstration in Barcelona. This consisted of a line, about 1000 miles long that snaked through Catalonia but the big demonstration was in Barcelona. Very very impressive. What was very conspicuous was a large contingent of Basques right in the middle of the main square, with about 500 of them. They were flying their flags and most definitely supporting Catalonian independence. It was very inspirational. I joined them with their chants.

I did so for a very simple reason. The European nations had in the previous 25 years destroyed the nation of Yugoslavia. Then in 1999 NATO went to war against Serbia to give the province of Kosovo independence. Not only that but the Spaniard Javier Solana was the one who pushed NATO into attacking Serbia because it would not give independence to Kosovo. My reaction to Javier -- eat dirt asshole, what goes around comes around. Now it is Catalonias turn to gain independence.

nobody | Oct 1, 2017 2:55:58 PM | 79
Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 1, 2017 2:45:48 PM | 78

You are right, of course, that it is all a big heaping steaming pile of global hypocrisy. It is pervasive and it is clearly the m.o. of Mb>every single one of these mafia regimes ruling over us in the planet.

Some "Grieved" barfly the other day was moaning about "god bothered" folks like me. Permit me to clear up the situation for you, dear grieved one:

There is a subset of humanity [presumed] that claims a "Natural Right to Rule". We the "god bothered" assert, on the contrary, that "Only God Rules". We do not deny the uneven distribution of Gifts, such as beauty, intelligence, capability, will power, discipline, physical prowess, artistic ability, etc. We accept all that.

What we do NOT accept is that a certain class of [so-called] Humans on this planet have an Inherent Right to Rule.

You, "grieved" one, are they one who drops all his weapons and armour before entering a battle. Boo hoo for you and your lot.

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 3:00:27 PM | 80
"If I remember correctly the U S was inclined originally to help keep Yugoslavia together but it was German pressure..." Very laughable, so client state an issue order to hegemonic power. Germans FP is not run by Germans, when we are talking about political strategic decisions that have affect on international order. Germany is not the creator it is followers. Secondly, Germany is no such power that can cause calamity of such proportion either in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Anywhere.

As for US help, god help those who US is helping. The US started with dismantling of Yugoslavia in 1984 (or immediately after Tito death), and by cultivation of the Serbian elite (by Zimmmeran, Eagleburger, Scowcroft), investment in Serbia and exporting Yugo cars, handguns from Zastava etc. in the US. And wide "cooperation" of Universities from US with Serbian one.

nobody | Oct 1, 2017 3:08:54 PM | 81
Indeed. In fact, the utterly defeated, occupied, and civilizationally lobotomized Germans, needed permission from that bitch Thatcher before they could reunify Nato-fatherland with Stasi-fatherland. Rusty-Bucket-Lady on German unification. .
nobody | Oct 1, 2017 3:23:20 PM | 83
Does this equation hold? NATO + Stasi = NWO

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f1tEEyLCDJk/hqdefault.jpg

mireille | Oct 1, 2017 3:37:42 PM | 84
An ignorant post B. You should stick with what you know. I'm starting to wonder if this forum has been taken over by some agency.

If you live with Catalans, you know that they are a distinct people. I know the French side but they share the same distinct culture. Their wealth comes from a culture of hard work and excellence, similar to the wealth of Northern Italy. If Spanish Catalonia separates they will exceed all expectations. French Catalonia, The Basques, and Spanish Galicia will follow. If French Catalonia goes the whole of Languedoc and probably Brittany will become more restive. Large governments are inherently parasitic and increasingly obsolete. We see this everywhere.

Regarding the Kurd comparison: the Barzani mafia are crypto Jews and work for Israel. The Catalans do not share this fatal defect.

Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 3:43:05 PM | 85
http://www.english.iswnews.com/616/bernard-levy-a-mysterious-man-who-was-hid-in-chaos-of-iraqi-kurdistan-referendum/
somebody | Oct 1, 2017 4:13:32 PM | 88
Posted by: mireille | Oct 1, 2017 3:37:42 PM | 84

I wonder how you will decide on Catalonyan citizenship, ius sanguinis or ius solis? Can the "destinctive culture" be preserved by ius solis? Catalan language courses? Citizenship for speaking the language? How will you draw the borders? By civil war?

My guess is that politicians on both sides are doing what they do best - stay in power by wipping up nationalist feelings.

Quintus Sertorius | Oct 1, 2017 5:14:41 PM | 95
F.MAN | Oct 1, 2017 6:10:29 PM | 98
Rajoy is ex Lehman Brothers executive. Need to say more?
Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 9:20:14 AM | 29

WOW! I dunno where you get that information, but he has nothing to do with Lehman Brothers... please read his profile in Wikipedia, which is quite accurate. I don't like him, I think he is one of the worst presidents ever Spain had. But seriously, he is no ex Lehman Brothers. he can not speak English for starters.

Debsisdead | Oct 1, 2017 6:13:44 PM | 100
The easiest way to discern a weak argument is when a non-sequitur such as "it's illegal because it's against the law" is dragged out and that is all I see from those hunting around for an excuse to decry a bunch of people, totally unaided by any external support arguing for freedom from oppression.

Once again as is becoming far too apparent on this board we many posts from people arguing for what suits them personally. American posters whose slow indoctrination against a united Europe is from America's hypocrisy in enjoying the advantages of a simple market whilst fearing the huge economic and political power a truly united Europe will eventuate in, support Catalans because like Agent Orange they feel more secure when Europe is weakened.

On the other hand euros who like united Europe in principle but rightly resent the neoliberal monolith the EU has morphed into, oppose the Catalan secession because they are concerned about further EU destabilization. That is foolish Catalonia would stay part of the EU and any reformed EU must decentralize some decision making to better reflect the local circumstances, while it does a much better job of becoming more 'unitary' in other ways. Yes many Germans hate that idea because they have been enjoying the German imperialism by stealth which is the current EU model, but unless they do become much more understanding of the economic injustices that current EU policies exacerbate, there will be no EU and if that happens these issues will stop being sorted by ballot and go back to the 'old way' of Europeans killing each other in the pursuit of economic advantage.

It can never be wrong or illegal for people to seek change through ballot - if the 'law' says it is then the law is an ass. It is that simple especially in these circumstances when Catalans are voting in spite of the external forces lining up against them - not because of them. A truly united Europe is the best way forward by far but there must be real change throughout the 'sovereign states' and the unprincipled Brussels gang to accommodate this.

[Oct 02, 2017] Independence for Catalonia is a bad idea

Leaving Spain and staying in EU is kind of neoliberal play, not exactly nationalism. Something like Ukrainian Maydan. As for rich parts of the county want to secede from more poor parts, the tale of Ukraine and Georgia which were more well-to-do parts of the USSR are interesting examples what can happen in suchcases.
Kosovo opened the Pandora box of "parade of independence declarations" in Europe. And now EU and, especially Germany, needs to eat its own dog food.
Notable quotes:
"... What you are saying is that the Spanish state has no rights to remain a coherent unitary state but, rather, must allow itself to be disintegrated by the political whims of this or that group. In such manner, every extant state could look forward to quick death at the ballot box. ..."
"... "The right in international law of a people to self-determination cannot be constrained by the domestic legislation of the larger state from which that people is seeking to secede. NATO itself went to war ostensibly to enforce the right to self-determination of the Kosovans, which Kosovan secession was claimed as illegal by Serbia in precisely the same terms the Spanish claim. The hypocrisy of NATO governments is breathtaking (as always)." Craig Murray https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ Interesting comparisons with Scotland and Kosovo. This is another fight in which I have no dog. Thirdeye -> outthere... , 02 October 2017 at 02:35 AM Even worse, in the case of Kosovo the group claiming the right to self-determination were ethnic Albanians who migrated to Kosovo in the late Ottoman period and claimed the primacy of their group's collective rights over those of the Serbs, the original inhabitants. That situation is a lot like what's going on with the Rohingya who were brought to Burma by the Brits, with the same undercurrent of Islamist agitation. ..."
"... The Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy showed bad judgment in my opinion in preventing the referendum from taking place. The UK allowed the Scots to have their vote and campaigned on why the Scots would be better off in the UK. The Scots rejected independence. Similarly Canada permitted Quebec to vote and campaigned on the benefits. The Quebecois voted against separation. ..."
"... How about Ordoliberalim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism ..."
"... The Catalan and similar movements are going to become a feature of this century as a direct result of globalism. This was made plain at least twenty years ago. ..."
"... The downside of fragmentation is that the world is modeled on the Westphalian state concept, and all our treaties with each other are predicated on the state enforcing them on their citizens. As nation states lose that ability, the outcome is war. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Lemur, 01 October 2017 at 03:06 PM

From the perspective of the post-liberal right, a little chaos is a small price to pay for scuppering the globalist world order. I see no reason (outside of bourgeois considerations) to hold sacred the existence of states who merely demarcate zones of competition between disparate groups, or who serve the need of international capital for 'political stability.'

The 20th century was dominated by three political models, which arose in response to mass society - Fascism, Communism, and managerial liberalism. A combination of institutional instability and the alliance of the latter two took out the first one. The second collapsed under the weight of a centrally managed economy. The latter thought it had 'won' because it was the last man standing. But this model is accumulating irreparable system failures of its own, because its fundamental premises are flawed too (endless growth, individuals are the primary unit of society, freedom is 'doing whatever you like', the distribution of goods and services is the sum of a stable society).

Whenever there is disorder in the universe, chaos clears a space for the natural order to reassert itself given the contingencies of the time. Western thought has understood this since Heraclitus ('flux'). The winds of change are blowing, and contra the the Scorpions song, its not toward the universal brotherhood of man. We are in the beginning of a transition, a liminal phase. The West is transmogrifying into a new forms, which cannot be explained in the terms of the old models.

Babak Makkinejad -> Bandolero ... , 01 October 2017 at 07:57 PM
What you are saying is that the Spanish state has no rights to remain a coherent unitary state but, rather, must allow itself to be disintegrated by the political whims of this or that group. In such manner, every extant state could look forward to quick death at the ballot box.
BrotherJoe -> Lemur... , 01 October 2017 at 07:08 PM
Well said sir, well said.
Balint Somkuti, PhD -> Babak Makkinejad... , 02 October 2017 at 05:09 AM
"Fascism, Communism, and Managerial Liberalism are different facets of the same mechanistic Bourgeois rationalism that discarded with religion"

whole heartedly agree.

Thirdeye -> Lemur... , 02 October 2017 at 02:14 AM
Whenever there is disorder in the universe, chaos clears a space for the natural order to reassert itself given the contingencies of the time.
Uh..... Second Law of Thermodynamics?
outthere , 01 October 2017 at 03:40 PM
"The right in international law of a people to self-determination cannot be constrained by the domestic legislation of the larger state from which that people is seeking to secede. NATO itself went to war ostensibly to enforce the right to self-determination of the Kosovans, which Kosovan secession was claimed as illegal by Serbia in precisely the same terms the Spanish claim. The hypocrisy of NATO governments is breathtaking (as always)." Craig Murray https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Interesting comparisons with Scotland and Kosovo. This is another fight in which I have no dog.

Thirdeye -> outthere... , 02 October 2017 at 02:35 AM
Even worse, in the case of Kosovo the group claiming the right to self-determination were ethnic Albanians who migrated to Kosovo in the late Ottoman period and claimed the primacy of their group's collective rights over those of the Serbs, the original inhabitants. That situation is a lot like what's going on with the Rohingya who were brought to Burma by the Brits, with the same undercurrent of Islamist agitation.
Jack , 01 October 2017 at 03:41 PM
Sir

The Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy showed bad judgment in my opinion in preventing the referendum from taking place. The UK allowed the Scots to have their vote and campaigned on why the Scots would be better off in the UK. The Scots rejected independence. Similarly Canada permitted Quebec to vote and campaigned on the benefits. The Quebecois voted against separation.

In the non-binding referendum done some years back nearly half the Catalans rejected an independent state. If the Spanish had allowed an open referendum and campaigned against secession the outcome would very likely have been that separation would have been rejected. In an open referendum those opposed to secession would have been empowered to campaign and vote against separation.

In this case the Spanish government chose to disrupt the referendum by using police force. The separatists chose to come out in the streets to exercise their right of self-determination. The videos of police violence are a public relations disaster for the Spanish government and will only steel the resolve of the separatists. Since the Spanish national police were attacking polling stations and taking away ballot boxes by force, this created a pretext for the Catalonian authorities to tell their supporters they could print their ballots at home and deposit at any polling station.

Additionally since the Spanish police have disabled all vote counting software systems the Catalonians can count and come up with any result they choose.

This situation can only escalate now. The lesson of the referenda in Scotland and Quebec was not learned.

The EU project of a common currency and monetary policy is fundamentally flawed unless they move towards a fiscal union as Macron is suggesting. Centrifugal forces are gathering strength not only in Europe but also here in the US.

begob -> Jack... , 02 October 2017 at 08:35 AM
Centrifugal forces are gathering strength not only in Europe but also here in the US.
Perhaps, but in Catalonia's case (and Scotland's too) secession is planned with a view to joining the EU in their own right.

I expect the authoritarian trend in some former COMECON countries will be a greater threat to the EU.

David Lentini , 01 October 2017 at 05:05 PM
I see much of the sentiments of the Catlonian independence movement as a major vote of no confidence in the central Spanish government, which is a complete whore to the global bankers and the EU's autocrats. The tyrannical attitudes of Junkers & Co. are driving the action along these fault lines with the resulting seismic activity. The central governments have no one to blame but themselves.

Of course, the EU might like to see this sort of unrest as an excuse to declare martial law and establish themselves as the outright controllers of Europe.

kxd -> David Lentini... , 01 October 2017 at 05:55 PM
Except the pro-independence leaders and supporters are also Pro-EU and have declared that their newly formed free state will seek to join the EU and hope to be accepted with no qualm (delusional) or some even argue that when they declare independence they won't actually be leaving the EU.

So where that does leave your argument?

(disclaimer: I don't care one way or another about Spain nor Catalonia, I have no skin in that game, though I generally lean towards favoring secessionist movements in principle.)

Sam Peralta , 01 October 2017 at 05:39 PM
Col. Lang

The early returns are showing a massive landslide victory for the Catalan separatists. I have not seen any data yet on the turnout or the ratio of registered voters that actually cast ballots.

" Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont says the region has won the right to statehood following Sunday's contentious referendum which was marred by violence.

He said the door had been opened to a unilateral declaration of independence. "

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41463719

How will the Spanish government now respond if the Catalan parliament declares independence? Will they send in tanks? The media would have a field day with that. What will the EU apparatchiks do?

Col. Lang, you are right. If the Catalans succeed in becoming independent, then it will only embolden all the other separatist movements in Europe. The next few days will be interesting to see how this escalates.

turcopolier , 01 October 2017 at 05:46 PM
All

As you probably have figured out by now, my rhetorical positions in posts do not always match my actual positions. It will, in fact be interesting to watch if Europe and North America devolve into their natural fragments. I hope I am here to watch. BTW "The Vietnam War" is available on Comcast "on demand." pl

sege -> turcopolier ... , 01 October 2017 at 06:02 PM
IMO that ship has long sailed for Quebec at least. My father came here as an FOB immigrant in the 80s and enthusiastically voted "Oui" in '95 along with his fellow transplants that had accompanied him on scholarship way back then, all of whom along with him had by then picked up native wives. The newer breed of immigrant is more in tune with "Multicultural Paradise" vision of canada. And the younger quebecois generation couldnt care less, even as the language itself continues to degenerate, especially in montreal.
iowa steve , 01 October 2017 at 06:10 PM
Not unexpectedly there are some pundits who attribute Catalonia's independence vote to the nefarious hand of Putin the Omnipotent.
Walrus , 01 October 2017 at 06:13 PM
Col. Lang, with respect. How would you contrast the Catalan position with the Southern states? - "to force upon the central power its own separation"?

I am saving the Ken Burns Vietnam for later.

voislav , 01 October 2017 at 06:25 PM
This is a natural progression of the dismantling of the nation state supremacy over the past 30 years. The break-ups of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia established the precedent that the constituent parts of a state can break off without a supporting referendum or agreement with the central government. This culminated with the International Court of Justice ruling on Kosovo independence that established that any group can declare independence. There is no internationally recognized legal requirement for such declaration and the group does not have to have any legitimacy through election or referendum. Enforcement of the territorial integrity of a country depends solely on its monopoly of force, there is no legal recourse.

The issue Europe is facing now is that the economy is being driven off the cliff by the German mercantilism, giving rise to populist nationalism. So now Europe, having supported the principle of self-determination elsewhere (where convenient), will have to suppress it by force at home while maintaining a veneer of democracy.

Britain and Canada managed to skirt the issue by relying on media and financial inducements to obtain a favourable vote. Spain will be a real test as the referendum will be inevitably followed by some sort of declaration of independence, leaving central government with no choice but to escalate the into violent repression.

One way or the other, this will open a lot of rifts in Europe. Many people will see this as illegal crackdown on democratic rights, while others will see it as legitimate suppression of separatism. Countries with ethnic issues will likely side with Spain, but others will likely side with Catalan self-determination rights. So far most EU governments are not reacting, but the pressure to do so will increase quickly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/01/catalan-referendum-eu-leaders-remain-muted-over-police-crackdown

LeaNder -> voislav... , 02 October 2017 at 06:49 AM
The economic perspective via Agence France Press on Al Jazeera:

*****
About a decade ago slightly led by someone's core arguments on an issue surfacing here repeatedly, I looked into self-determination and more recent academic debates. Legally it is balanced by the right to territorial unity. Never mind my personal opinion concerning e.g. Crimea. What about California?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Current_issues

Kosovo introduced a more recent legal frame in international law. But concerning Catalonia there is of cause also national law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017

******
You should update this term slightly, I had to smile, admittedly: The issue Europe is facing now is that the economy is being driven off the cliff by the German mercantilism

How about Ordoliberalim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

That's at least the recurring critique by e.g. Yanis Varoufakis et all.

What about the idea of keeping some type of balance between what you earn/tax and what you spent? Or redistribute? ... MRW seems to feel money only needs to be printed, debts don't matter.

Walrus , 01 October 2017 at 06:31 PM
The Catalan and similar movements are going to become a feature of this century as a direct result of globalism. This was made plain at least twenty years ago.

The cause is the weakening of the nation state as an organising principle because of the weakening of national identity. People now have a multitude of choices about their identity thanks to global information flows. For example you can now identify as LGBT, Jedi Night, MS13, libertarian, etc. etc. The old 'brands" - English, Spanish, Italian, Australian, etc. are now breaking down into a multitude of subsets with which people can identiify.

However its not just "identifying"; its organising around that identity that is the problem. By way of example, it appears to me (and I may be wrong) that the entire BLM movement is purveying a black American identity that is based on a "them and us" model that views conflict as inevitable. In Australia we have a serious criminal gang problem with members identifying as Hells Angels, Comancheros - imported American identities. Twenty years ago that would have been quaint.

The downside of fragmentation is that the world is modeled on the Westphalian state concept, and all our treaties with each other are predicated on the state enforcing them on their citizens. As nation states lose that ability, the outcome is war.

Clueless Joe -> Walrus... , 01 October 2017 at 07:42 PM
Mike: Only the province of Catalonia voted on it. Baleares and Valencia don't want to join them, but of course you have plenty of foolish irredentists who want to take them back, and even French Roussillon to boot.

That's even more reasons for EU countries to not recognize that process, because if they're allowed to succeed, no current border will ever be safe in Europe; you'll always find some goons ready to declare independence for their village, or for it to join the country next door, or to want to annex the neighbouring town beyond the border, under any flimsy pretext.

Jack: "As nation states lose that ability, the outcome is war." Well, the outcome is more than war. The obvious final outcome is the war of all these newly self-styled communities against all the other communities. Then, after immense bloodshed and suffering, when people will be fed up and depressed after years of war, some major groups, ethnies, religions or leftover nations will stand and regroup the bludgeoned and nearly destroyed smaller groups and populations, who will gladly go under their umbrella if they can ensure peace at long last.

I defer to Col. Lang about the constitutional right of the Southern States. Here, Catalonian independantist leaders clearly violated not only the Spanish Constitution, went against Spanish Supreme Court rulings, they even went against their own Catalonian courts who were opposed to the referendum and bypassed the Catalonian parliament, because they knew many parties would opposed the referendum as well. To be blunt, that idiot Rajoy is acting out now and relies on violence because Catalonian people couldn't be bothered to protest against authoritarian leaders who don't give a damn about legality, both Spanish and Catalonian ones, and Catalonian police couldn't be bothered to jail them.

And there's no way this is a backlash against "capitalist globalism" or whatever, the current bunch of independantist leaders are just as corrupt as the Spanish ones, and the way they did their wannabe referendum is proof enough they're ready to rule their future country like Orban, or even Lukashenko.

Babak Makkinejad -> Clueless Joe... , 02 October 2017 at 05:55 AM
Agreed.
mike , 01 October 2017 at 06:53 PM
I'm with Jack. Both Spain and Iraq should take lessons from the Scot and Quebec models. Catalonia has never been truly Spanish, always repressed and treated with contempt by Madrid. IIRC even Cervantes denigrated Catalonians 400 years ago, calling them thieves in his Don Quixote novel.

What of Majorca and the other Balearics, was the referendum held there as well as in Barcelona? Are they not all mostly of ethnic Catalan descent, or have they been Iberianized? Or they may well prefer stability and the plentiful tourist euros and greenbacks instead of the possible volatility of a referendum.

Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg -> mike... , 01 October 2017 at 10:14 PM
Europe is in such a state of uncertainty and tumult, I have to wonder how long people in the periphery of some of these states will consider such stability as a net benefit. The slow strangulation of Greece is an example to all.
turcopolier , 01 October 2017 at 07:23 PM
walrus

I am unfamiliar with the Spanish constitution but in the case of the US in 1861 the Southern states had a constitutional right to secede. pl

Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg -> turcopolier ... , 01 October 2017 at 10:11 PM
That's actually totally true. Some northern states at one point had themselves threatened to secede. The south just lost the military chess match.
Cortes -> turcopolier ... , 02 October 2017 at 09:38 AM
The current Spanish Constitution made the peaceful transition from the Franco era possible, at the price of denial of the legal right to secede. A more mature democracy, not needing to look over its shoulder for the emergence of another Tejero (who threatened the Parliament) from the ranks of the Army could have gone the same route as Quebec and Scotland. Not Spain. There are plenty of "unresolved issues " out there. The most interesting, but depressing, thing I've observed over the last 18 months or so has been the campaign to denigrate the autonomous police force of Catalonia, culminating with a blame game over the recent terrorist outrages. I'm not sure that there won't be telling responses to that, let alone the hamfistedness of the central government over the past few months.
ISL , 01 October 2017 at 08:33 PM
Dear Colonel,

I will make a prediction that in 100 years, if there is a peaceful earth with a climate that supports advanced civilizations, the world will be redefined into city states (or single planet-wide nation aka star trek, but I think there were several global wars in between in that future history).

Until fairly recently, empires with free movement within were the rule of the day. The EU has attempted to resurrect empire, but in the world of good communication, the inevitable inequalities are tearing the project apart (ignorance is bliss). The city and its surrounding agricultural lands is a natural economic unit, and if you blob two city states into one economic unit (e.g., a nation state), absent eternal subsidization (as in Rome versus Milan), one city and its environs settles into terminal decline relative to the other. The end result is that after a few hundred years, every country is dominated by one city with the rest on economic life support (i.e., subsidization).

Current EU policy is optimal for Germany and thus by definition sub-optimal for all other countries. The end result is the current state of affairs with the EU one Italian vote from collapse. This would have happened eventually - for example, Italy has not had a good year of economic growth since it joined the euro (but many good years before). However, the US generated arc of instability and resultant refugee waves brought the chickens home to roost in the now, not in a few decades.

Catalan is a symptom, and EU opposition is not a cure, its a band aid (as is the EU treatment of Greece), but the EU repeatedly over-rules democracy (vote again until you get the right vote), which as long as it also provided rising incomes (on debt) was accepted.

Many years ago I read a book that described the rise and decline of cities in different countries but cant recall or google find the title (not Jane Jacobs' treatise).

Detroit is an excellent example - US economic policy matches that of the financial centers. Only if Michigan was to separate, could Detroit reverse its fortunes - possibly but unlikely given the quality of US political leadership - or more to the point, how bought they are in our very expensive electoral system.

Babak Makkinejad -> ISL... , 02 October 2017 at 05:50 AM
No, no, no. That model does not exist any longer, what relationship does Mexico City, Seoul, Peking, Tehran, London, New York, DC have with the surrounding country side?
r whitman , 01 October 2017 at 09:29 PM
Borders always change. In my lifetime I have seen the borders of the USA change 3 times.
Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , 01 October 2017 at 10:10 PM
Since, as has been pointed out, Catalonia would remain in the EU, it seems on the surface to make little difference whether Catalonia remains part of Spain anymore than if Bavaria remains part of Germany or Lombardy part of Italy.
The real problem for Madrid's poobahs is how can they keep paying extortion money to German, French and American banks if they lose a major urban center like Catalonia. I'm sure they assume (and probably correctly) that Basque country would follow quickly in departure.
Aside from that, the extreme and rapidly accelerating centralizing tendencies of the neoliberal world order (the Brussels brain trust throwing national sovereignty out the window when issues of finance and immigration come up for instance) have created a reaction that might look likely to undo the EU project, but in a way, create a crisis which could be exploited by those seeking further centralization.
Babak Makkinejad -> Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg... , 02 October 2017 at 05:52 AM
The Catalans, like the Knights of Malta can become an independent state without land. They are not legally entitled to the Lands of Catalonia.
kxd -> Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg... , 02 October 2017 at 06:03 AM
Catalonia would NOT remain in the EU. I stated that the pro-independence leaders and supporters WANTED to remain in the EU but that is a pipe deam they are selling each other because the EU would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence and Spain would never vote for Catalonia to join anyway.
Balint Somkuti, PhD , 02 October 2017 at 06:03 AM
Multiethnical states tend to fall apart see Sovietunion, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia. Wonder how long such anti-minority states like Greater Romania and Ukraine will last.

OTOH with such gigacompanies such as google, or microsoft the creation of small, fragmented, and financially weak states clearly favor the masters of globalization.

[Oct 02, 2017] John Helmer Washington Post Misses Manafort's Real Crimes

Notable quotes:
"... For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled. ..."
"... The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. ..."
Sep 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The second half of 2008 was a very bad time for Deripaska, as the Russian aluminium and other businesses on which he depended, collapsed into insolvency with accumulated debts at one point of about $20 billion. Deripaska told the Cayman Island court: "By mid-summer 2008, there were clear indications of the oncoming world financial crisis, and at this time the Petitioner was the only limited partner in the Partnership which had made only one investment (BSC [Black Sea Cable]). In September 2008 the Petitioner [Deripaska] informed the GP [Manafort] that it was suspending further investment into the Partnership."

For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled.

A few weeks ago Kurochkina refused to tell the New York Times whether Deripaska is continuing to pursue Manafort's $18 million debt. That newspaper claimed "Mr. Deripaska appears to have stopped pursuing his court action against Mr. Manafort and his former investment partners, Rick Gates and Rick Davis, in late 2015." The newspaper reporters didn't ask, and Kurochkina didn't explain, what services Manafort had invoiced Deripaska for which $7.3 million was paid out. Noone has asked Deripaska whether he thinks Manafort kept the money for himself.

The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale. If Deripaska had been content to leave Manafort holding $26,288,400 of the Russian oligarch's cash through the 2008 crisis and the General Motors negotiations in 2009, his patience had run out by November 2009, when the cancellation of the Opel sale became public.

On November 5, 2009, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced after his cabinet ministers had discussed the Opel deal, "it shows that our American partners have a very original culture when dealing with counterparties. We will have to take into account this style of dealing with partners in the future, though this scornful approach toward partners mainly affects the Europeans, not us. GM did not warn anyone, did not speak to anyone despite all the agreements reached and documents signed. Well, I think it is a good lesson."

These days, according to the media leaks, US Government investigators of Manafort are pursuing a different lesson. This is that Manafort took Deripaska's money for the purpose of subverting the US presidential election of 2016. The court evidence indicates that Manafort was paid for Ukrainian assets which didn't materialize, and kept the money for himself through a period when the US government first decided to sell a multi-billion dollar part of then-bankrupt General Motors to Derripaska, and then, quite suddenly, decided not to.

Watt4Bob , September 25, 2017 at 10:43 am

Considering the following, (follow the link) that stretch thingie starts making more and more sense.

The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale.

From the linked article;

When Hillary Clinton (lead, left) was US Secretary of State in 2009, she proved she could lie to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel; keep secret her hostility towards Russia even in her secret staff emails; and take money in her back pocket for an $8 billion deal between the US, Germany and Russia recommended by her subordinates. The record, recently revealed in US investigations of Clinton's emails and donations to the Clinton Foundation, shows why the Kremlin assessment of Clinton is hostile and blunt – Clinton invites and takes bribes, but can't be relied on to keep her bargains

A lot of people remember being screw*d out of a $million, even 5 or 10 years after the fact.

Watt4Bob , September 25, 2017 at 10:56 am

The way I read this post, and the embedded history of Hillary's double-cross of Deripaska, is that there is an unstated agreement among our current ruling class, that it's ok to double-cross and provoke Russia/Russians for profit, but not to make actual deals because that would be collaboration at least, and maybe treason.

justanotherprogressive , September 25, 2017 at 11:04 am

Or maybe the US's "elite" don't consider the Russian oligarchs "sophisticated" and are therefore ripe for plucking. After all, "it's just business"!

doug , September 25, 2017 at 11:10 am

The US Elite don't consider any of us 'sophisticated', and therefore ripe for the picking.

Fool , September 25, 2017 at 1:21 pm

I thought these Russian bad boys played a more brass knuckled style of business. How does one steal $19 million from Deripaska and get away with it?

Barry Fay , September 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm

I thought the same thing. Does Manafort have stock in Blackwater or what? The blithe narration of unmitigated corruption says all one needs to know of the times we live in.

shinola , September 25, 2017 at 1:23 pm

Apparently, the Russians still believed in that old saw about "honor among thieves".

Suckers!

St Jacques , September 27, 2017 at 5:33 am

Probably makes sense in Russia, where a lack of honour can soon turn you into bear meat.

[Oct 02, 2017] the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens 'Double standard hypocrisy' Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan refere

Oct 02, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

'Double standard & hypocrisy': Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan referendum Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the EU of hypocrisy and double-standards following its denouncement of the Catalonian referendum as illegal, while acknowledging the independence of the breakaway province of Kosovo.
" The question every citizen of Serbia has for the European Union today is: How come that in the case of Catalonia the referendum on independence is not valid, while in the case of Kosovo secession is allowed even without a referendum, " B92 quoted Vucic as saying during a news conference.
" How did you proclaim the secession of Kosovo to be legal, even without a referendum, and how did 22 European Union countries legalize this secession, while destroying European law and the foundations of European law, on which the European policy and EU policy are based? "
On Monday the European Commission echoed the Spanish government's stance that the referendum held in Catalonia was illegal, describing the events on Sunday, which saw voters being beaten by Spanish riot police, as an "internal matter". By contrast in 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging its member states to recognize Kosovo's independence.
" This is the best example of the double standards and hypocrisy of the world politics, " Vucic said.

[Oct 02, 2017] The Kurdish independence referendum was a political miscalculation

Independence of small nations always depends on great powers. They are essentially pawns in a bigger game, national aspirations and all that as a tool in often pretty dirty game.
Notable quotes:
"... The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission. ..."
"... The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission.

The referendum succeeded in showing that the Kurds, not just in Iraq but in Turkey, Iran and Syria, still yearn for their own state. Paradoxically, the outcome of the poll has demonstrated both the strength of their demand for self-determination and the weakness of their ability to obtain it. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is revealed as a minnow whose freedom of action – and even its survival – depends on playing off one foreign state against the other and keeping tolerable relations with all of them, even when they detested each other. In the past an American envoy would go out one door just as the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards came in the other.

The referendum has ended, perhaps only temporarily, these delicate balancing acts at which the Kurdish leadership was very skilled. In the last few weeks, the US has denounced the referendum in forthright terms, emboldening Iraq, Turkey and Iran to punish the Kurds for their undiplomatic enthusiasm to be an independent nation.

The poll was always a dangerous gamble but it is too early to say that it has entirely failed: minority communities and small nations must occasionally kick their big power allies in the teeth. Otherwise, they will become permanent proxies whose agreement with what their big power ally wants can be taken for granted. The skill for the smaller player is not to pay too high a price for going their own way. Iraq, Turkey and Iran have all made threatening statements over the last few days, some of them bombast, but they can hit the Kurds very hard if they want to.

The Kurds are in a fix and normally they would look to Washington to help them out, but under President Trump US foreign policy has become notoriously unpredictable. Worse from the Kurdish point of view, the US no longer needs the Iraqi Kurds as it did before the capture of Mosul from Isis in July. In any case, it was the Iraqi armed forces that won a great victory there, so for the first time in 14 years there is a powerful Iraqi army in the north of the country. We may not be on the verge of an Arab-Kurdish war, but the military balance of power is changing and Baghdad, not Irbil, is the gainer.

Anxious diplomats and excited journalists describe Iraq as "being on a collision course", but the different parties will not necessarily collide. Muddling through is not only a British trait. But there is no doubt that the situation has become more dangerous, particularly in the disputed territories stretching across northern Iraq from Syria to Iran.

The referendum always had a risky ambivalence about it which helped ignite the present crisis. It all depended on what audience Kurdish President Masoud Barzani was addressing: when he spoke to Kurdish voters, it was a poll of historic significance when the Kurds would take a decisive step towards an independent state.

But addressing an international and regional audience, Barzani said he was proposing something much tamer, more like an opinion poll, in which the Iraqi Kurds were politely indicating a general preference for independence at some date in the future. Like many leaders who play the nationalist card, Barzani is finding that his rhetoric is being taken more seriously than his caveats. "Bye, Bye Iraq!" chanted crowds in Irbil on the night of the referendum.

Much of this was born of Barzani's bid to outmanoeuvre his political rivals in Kurdistan by re-emerging as the standard bearer of Kurdish nationalism. He will benefit from his decision to defy the world and press ahead with the vote when it comes to the presidential and parliamentary elections in KRG on 1 November.

But the price of this could be high. It is not only Barzani who is facing an election in which national self-assertion is an issue in the coming months. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has a parliamentary election in 2018 and does not want to be accused of being insufficiently tough on the Kurds. Banning of international flights to Irbil is far less than many Iraqi MPs say they want.

By holding a referendum in the disputed territories, Barzani promoted this issue to the top of the Iraqi political agenda. It might have been in the interests of the Kurds to let it lie since the contending claims for land are deeply felt and irreconcilable. Optimists believe that Irbil and Baghdad could never go to war because they are both too dependent militarily on foreign powers. It is true that the Iraqi armed forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga alike could not have held off and defeated Isis without close air support from the US-led coalition. But by putting the future status of the KRG and the territories in play, Barzani has presented the Iraqi government, Turkey and Iran with a threat and an opportunity.

The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude.

Once the KRG dreamed of becoming a new Dubai with gleaming malls and hotels, but since 2014 it has looked more like Pompeii. The skyline is punctured by dozens of half completed tower blocks beside rusting cranes and abandoned machinery. The boom town atmosphere disappeared in 2014 when the price of oil went down, money stopped coming from Baghdad and Isis seized Mosul two hours' drive away. The state is impoverished and salaries paid late, if at all. This will now all get a lot worse with airports and border crossings closed and 35,000 federal employees no longer being paid.

At all events, the political landscape in Iraq and Syria is changing: we are at the beginning of a new political phase in which the battle to defeat Isis is being replaced by a power struggle between Arabs and Kurds.

[Oct 02, 2017] Presidential Candidates Push American Supremacy, Not National Defenss and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt

Notable quotes:
"... we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks. ..."
"... I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. ..."
"... At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity. ..."
"... The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent. ..."
Jul 09, 2016 | therealnews.com

BACEVICH: Well, I think that's true. I mean, for the moment, we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks.

... ... ...

BACEVICH: Well, I think, I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf.

However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. So prior to 1980, no major U.S. military involvement in the region. Beginning in 1980, a pattern of armed interventionism in the greater Middle East that continues down to the present day, and at least in my judgment has been unsuccessful, and indeed, counterproductive. So the military narrative really begins in 1980.

JAY: Yeah, it's interesting with a Democratic president, from the Democratic Party, certainly under the sway of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was more or less the architect, I think, of the Carter doctrine, and leads to the war in Afghanistan. I guess--I hope most people know the basic story there, that the Americans funded jihadists in Afghanistan to suck the Russians in, and then successfully so, into a quagmire. And even though that led to the forming of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.

And I think you can probably draw a straight line from that Carter doctrine right to 9/11, in terms of--it's a good example, I think, of what you're talking about, how this foreign policy--.

BACEVICH: I don't, I don't know that I'd call it a straight line, but there's a line. I mean, there certainly are a whole bunch of dots that can be connected. And I think that the Afghanistan experience, we're supporting the jihadists, is a good example of the unexpected consequences of U.S. interventionism.

At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity.

So both of these, Afghanistan in the '80s, Iraq beginning in 2003, illustrate the larger point that U.S. military interventionism in this region simply has not produced the positive outcomes that policymakers have, have expected.

... ... ....

BACEVICH: ...The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent.

[Oct 01, 2017] Podesta emails showed Facebook colluded with Clinton, Assange reminds

Sep 29, 2017 | www.legitgov.org

Originally from Podesta emails showed Facebook colluded with Clinton, Assange reminds | 29 Sept 2017

As US lawmakers demand social media companies show how their platforms were allegedly used by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, WikiLeaks co-founder tweeted emails that show Facebook executives in direct communication with one candidate's team.

Beginning on October 7 last year, WikiLeaks published hundreds of emails from the private account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. The daily drops continued for a couple days after the November 8 election.

On Thursday, as US media were speculating about "Russian" meddling on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, Julian Assange tweeted some of the Podesta emails with a reminder that the social network's leading lights were Clinton fans.

[Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Sep 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election, officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this extraordinary claim.

This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees – that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is now in doubt.

Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":

MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election. . .targeting their election infrastructure."

They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as our President?"

So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its election systems targeted by Russian hackers:

The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."

Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:

Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.

But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.

The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:

Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid, causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?

Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near? Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial, unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?

And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread them say little to nothing when it is debunked.

None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention, have now been repudiated.

But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.

Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked.

A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia").

The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."

They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand, as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed by the nation's least trustworthy sources.

But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.

That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.

No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).

Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?

[Sep 30, 2017] Yanis Varoufakis Schauble Leaves but Schauble-ism Lives On by Yanis Varoufakis

Notable quotes:
"... Why did Dr Schäuble aim at maintaining the eurozones fragility? Why was he, in this context, ever so keen to maintain the threat of Grexit? The simple answer is: Because a state of permanent fragility was instrumental to his strategy for using the threat of expulsion from the euro (or even of Germanys withdrawal from it) to discipline the deficit countries – chiefly France. ..."
"... Deep in Dr Schäuble thinking there was the belief that, as a federation is infeasible, the euro is a glorified fixed exchange rate regime. ..."
"... It really seems that the outcomes of both versions of economic conservatism produce similar neoliberal outcomes in aggregate: reduced wages, precarious working conditions, increasing economic inequality, reduced services, tax money being funnelled to businesses, and vanishing/crumbling infrastructure ..."
"... Then again, Obsourne* was all about the rhetoric of balanced budgets – that is, balanced budget for the poor, unbalanced budget stimulus for the rich. So, there can also be a Tory similarity with the German type of economic conservative strand. ..."
"... For the average working punter the situation, in toto, just keeps getting worse. ..."
"... I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble, a lawyer not an economist, and one with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence (bribes being acceptable business expenses in Germany until recently). ..."
"... I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble ..."
"... with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence ..."
"... I agree that he is on board with ordoliberallism which is basically a nutcase extremist version of neoliberalism that is mainstream in Germany but I didn't want to over-egg the pudding. Let us not forget that the non-ordoliberal IMF has fronted for the Troikas tender ministrations to debtor countries during pretty much all of Schaubles tenure, save its pushback in the latest round of financing for Greece over the refusal of EU state lenders to Greece to write off some of the debt owed. And the IMF still capitulated. ..."
"... So if the IMF stood shoulder to shoulder with Schauble, does the fact that he was an ordoliberal as opposed to neoliberal make any difference in practice? ..."
"... On the other hand, while Neoliberals are True Believers on the benefits of free movement and trade, Ordoliberals are far more pragmatic, and are at heart mercantilists and corporatists (and this includes being quite happy to keep Trade Unions and other social sectors on board rather than seeing them as enemies). This is clearly reflected in the constitutional make-up of the EU. ..."
"... Its also worth pointing out that while in the Anglosphere liberals have a unified approach and dominate the main parties, in many European countries, in particular Germany, there are, and always have been, distinct parties representing the different shades of liberal views, with Christian Democrats being Ordos, while smaller parties such as the Free Democrats representing a purer form of liberalism. As Yanis points out, a strengthened FDP is a disaster for Europe, we can only hope that the Greens somehow manage to wrestle away some of the economic portfolio from them. ..."
"... Philip Mirowski, who seems to have tried as much as anyone to clarify what is and isn't neoliberalism, considers ordoliberalism one of at least three or four variants: ordo, Austrian, Chicago School and, probably, James Buchanans public choice. He identifies Carl Schmitt as a key influence on Hayek, particularly Schmitts notions that the economy was too important to be left to the whims of democracy (only a strong state can preserve and enhance a free-market economy) and the exception, which is to say that the state should stay out of the economy at all times (i.e. no bailouts for you) except when preserving the market requires state intervention. Think Obama and big banks. ..."
"... I agree that Im surprised so many German workers have blithely accepted this constriction on their incomes. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on September 29, 2017 by Yves Smith

Originally published at his website

Yves here. It was painful to read the encomiums for Wolfgang Schäuble yesterday as he is about to leave his post as German finance minister and become speaker of the Bundestag.

The New York Times and Financial Times, among others, praised for his role as austerity enforcer and depicted him as the truest defender of European unity. In fact, the neoliberal policies that Schauble backed increased the centrifugal forces in the Eurozone, weakened an already anemic recovery, and provided powerful evidence that Europeans are anti-democratic, which in turn helped fuel Brexit and the rise of nationalist parties, particularly in France and Germany.

These accounts also either failed to mention or greatly underplayed the fact that Schäuble took bribes from an arms merchant, which put an end to his aspirations to become Chancellor.

Yanis Varoufakis

Wolfgang Schäuble may heave left the finance ministry but his policy for turning the eurozone into an iron cage of austerity, that is the very antithesis of a democratic federation, lives on.

What is remarkable about Dr Schäubles tenure was how he invested heavily in maintaining the fragility of the monetary union, rather than eradicating it in order to render the eurozone macro-economically sustainable and resilient. Why did Dr Schäuble aim at maintaining the eurozones fragility? Why was he, in this context, ever so keen to maintain the threat of Grexit? The simple answer is: Because a state of permanent fragility was instrumental to his strategy for using the threat of expulsion from the euro (or even of Germanys withdrawal from it) to discipline the deficit countries – chiefly France.

Deep in Dr Schäuble thinking there was the belief that, as a federation is infeasible, the euro is a glorified fixed exchange rate regime. And the only way of maintaining discipline within such a regime was to keep alive the threat of expulsion or exit. But to keep that threat alive, the eurozone could not be allowed to develop the instruments and institutions that would stop it from being fragile. Thus, the eurozones permanent fragility was, from Dr Schäubles perspective an end-in-itself, rather than a failure.

The Free Democratic Partys ascension will see to it that Wolfgang Schäubles departure will not alter the policy of doing whatever it takes to prevent the eurozone s evolution into a sustainable macroeconomy. The FDPs sole promise to its voters was to prevent any of Emmanuel Macrons plans, for some federation-lite, from being agreed to, and for pursuing Grexit. Even worse, whereas Wolfgang Schäuble understood that austerity plus new loans were catastrophic for countries like Greece (but insisted on them as part of his campaign to discipline France and Italy), his FDP successors at the finance ministry will probably be less enlightened believing that the tough medicine is fit for purpose.

And so the never ending crisis of Europes social economy, that feeds the xenophobic political monsters, continues.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 3:23 am

Just a slight – perhaps pedantic – point. Im not sure its correct except in its loosest sense to say that Schauble is a neoliberal. I think it can be deceptive sometimes to label everything we leftists dont like as neoliberal. He comes from quite a distinct line of German thought which explicitly rejects Keynesianism (even though the German economy has in reality many carefully built in counter-cyclical stabilisers) but mixes some Hayek with old fashioned mercantilism. The obsession with trade surpluses is one obvious differential between them and what we would consider neoliberalism. There is a good discussion of the distinctiveness of German conservative economic thought here .

As for the praise Schauble gets, it continually astonishes me, even in the victim countries, that Merkel and Schauble get such a free pass for the enormous damage they have done to Europe in the past 10 years, and that includes from many on the notional left. I think it shows just how hard it is to shift the notion of balanced budgets and living within our needs as a form of virtue . The (in many ways justified) worldwide admiration for the German economic model is such that people find it very hard not to feel somehow that they are always right. Even in Germany of course the potential for long term ruin has been set by the almost complete absence of investment in infrastructure over the last 2 decades.

Frenchguy , September 29, 2017 at 4:48 am

While I agree that German economic thought is archaic and that Merkel/Schauble were quite narrow-minded during the euro crisis, one criticism that I think is unfair is the one where they supposedly imposed austerity. Schauble in particular was always quite clear: if you want to stay in the Eurozone, you have to respect the fiscal rules that were agreed beforehand otherwise no worries, we will help you leave. Ill repeat that, Schauble was aware that Grexit might be the better option and was prepared to help but he left the choice to Greek leaders (side note, its actually the French that ruled out an exit from the Eurozone). The rules might have been dumb but the time to complain was before signing them, not after (newsflash: Germans are stickler for rules). Of course, peripheral countries knew that exiting the eurozone was actually not a panacea and Varoufakis in particular hoped to blackmail Germany into accepting his plans, that went well

So yeah, to say that they saved the Eurozone is far-fetched and they were certainly not visionnary in any sense of the world but they did bend the rules and they did spend a lot of domestic political capital on that (on the other hand, a bailout for the periphery was not that unpopular in France but French leaders pretty much capitulated on the issue). If you want a comparison, Merkel allowed the AfD to take flight in order to help the periphery while Tories in the UK did bail out of the EU in order to woo back UKIP voters. And of course, I am still waiting for the US governement to send any money to the Euro periphery since it is so simple.

There were few good guys during the euro crisis: Trichet was a disaster, Sarkozy signed on the Deauville accord a bit too enthusiastically, the Greeks did fake their deficit numbers (something that people forget too quickly, it was a major breach of trust) and Varoufakis played the blackmail game, Spanish politicians gunned for new records of corruption, Ireland set up one of the biggest corporate tax heavens of all time, Berlusconi was morally the worst of the bunch, even Draghi was perhaps a bit too slow to push spreads back to down (though he probably did the best he could) Among all of that mess, I think you can argue that Merkel was relatively the best of all, not that much of a compliment though.

makedoanmend , September 29, 2017 at 4:55 am

Yes, these are all very good points, excellent points in fact. And one should be able understand and delineate the differences between German conservatism and its UK variety of tory conservatism for instance. Id just interpret/input your points in a slightly different perspective.

It really seems that the outcomes of both versions of economic conservatism produce similar neoliberal outcomes in aggregate: reduced wages, precarious working conditions, increasing economic inequality, reduced services, tax money being funnelled to businesses, and vanishing/crumbling infrastructure.

It really seems to be a matter of degree rather absolutes.

UK infrastructure seems to be in decent shape and with PPP even the Tories can buy into a degree of Keynesian stimulus via public works, whilst it seems the Germans have largely dropped the ball. Then again, Obsourne* was all about the rhetoric of balanced budgets – that is, balanced budget for the poor, unbalanced budget stimulus for the rich. So, there can also be a Tory similarity with the German type of economic conservative strand.

So, I suppose, like everything else, the complexity is revealing in itself; and knowing how the different strands of economic conservatism evolved might help us understand how to counteract the pernicious effects.

For the average working punter the situation, in toto, just keeps getting worse.

[*To all NCers, Osbourne was finance minister under Cameron in the UK. If you should ever meet him, dont ask him what the product of 8 x 7 is. He thinks that kind of question isnt cricket and is basically a subversive type of activity.]

paul , September 29, 2017 at 5:37 am

To be fair, he was the only person to publicly shed tears over Margaret Thatcher's quite natural death. I'm sure he mopped his eyes afterward with an old hang mandela t shirt (de rigeur for his generation) before popping out to walk the dog with his old pal natalie rowe

skippy , September 29, 2017 at 4:56 am

Its not all black: European Parliament members decide to bar Monsanto lobbyists

https://www.ft.com/content/5c1c61e6-a457-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2

paul , September 29, 2017 at 5:20 am

I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble, a lawyer not an economist, and one with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence (bribes being acceptable business expenses in Germany until recently).

That gross chancellor kohls bagmans career was eclipsed by agent Angela must have been a terrible stone in his shoe.

I still remember him gelatinising Michael Portillo in one of his many TV license funded flounces around Europe. He pummelled poor Michael with his hausfrau hogwash as mercilessly as he vivisected Greece.

It was noticeable that Michael assumed that Germanys strength was due to Schaubles character rather than seeing a rather rank case of institutional inheritance.

Mark P. , September 29, 2017 at 5:56 am

I think ordoliberal is the appropriate term of art for schauble

It is. And the first responder to the OP, Plutonium Kun, up top, in fact provides a link to an analysis of ordoliberalism, and how it played out during and since the GFC.

with a rather dredd like approach to jurisprudence

I like the way you put that

Yves Smith Post author , September 29, 2017 at 6:06 am

I agree that he is on board with ordoliberallism which is basically a nutcase extremist version of neoliberalism that is mainstream in Germany but I didn't want to over-egg the pudding. Let us not forget that the non-ordoliberal IMF has fronted for the Troikas tender ministrations to debtor countries during pretty much all of Schaubles tenure, save its pushback in the latest round of financing for Greece over the refusal of EU state lenders to Greece to write off some of the debt owed. And the IMF still capitulated.

So if the IMF stood shoulder to shoulder with Schauble, does the fact that he was an ordoliberal as opposed to neoliberal make any difference in practice?

paul , September 29, 2017 at 6:27 am

It is probably splitting hairs from the same mangy dog, but I think ordoliberalism captures the prim sanctimony of monsters like schauble.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 6:57 am

Second try here (I wrote a reply to you which disappeared into cyberspace, it may pop up again).

I agree that the distinction between ordoliberalism, liberalism and neoliberalism is a bit irrelevant when the outcome is the same. And they do agree with each other on most subjects. I just think its worth paying attention to the distinct differences between the mainstream German version of liberalism and Anglo liberalism.

To take the issue of austerity, it always seems to me that the Germans are True Believers. They have a moral belief that excess spending, government deficits, and trade deficits are wrong in every circumstances. Neoliberals pay lip service to this but (correctly) ignore this in practice. Tories and Republicans are always quite happy to bust budgets when it suits them and in reality dont seem to care about trade deficits.

On the other hand, while Neoliberals are True Believers on the benefits of free movement and trade, Ordoliberals are far more pragmatic, and are at heart mercantilists and corporatists (and this includes being quite happy to keep Trade Unions and other social sectors on board rather than seeing them as enemies). This is clearly reflected in the constitutional make-up of the EU.

I think that one of the crucial failures in the Eurozone is that for a whole series of reasons the structural design of the Eurozone was hijacked by liberal True Believers, and much of the fault for this was the intellectual failure of the broader left to understand the importance of controlling monetary policy.

Its also worth pointing out that while in the Anglosphere liberals have a unified approach and dominate the main parties, in many European countries, in particular Germany, there are, and always have been, distinct parties representing the different shades of liberal views, with Christian Democrats being Ordos, while smaller parties such as the Free Democrats representing a purer form of liberalism. As Yanis points out, a strengthened FDP is a disaster for Europe, we can only hope that the Greens somehow manage to wrestle away some of the economic portfolio from them.

Left in Wisconsin , September 29, 2017 at 12:16 pm

Philip Mirowski, who seems to have tried as much as anyone to clarify what is and isn't neoliberalism, considers ordoliberalism one of at least three or four variants: ordo, Austrian, Chicago School and, probably, James Buchanans public choice. He identifies Carl Schmitt as a key influence on Hayek, particularly Schmitts notions that the economy was too important to be left to the whims of democracy (only a strong state can preserve and enhance a free-market economy) and the exception, which is to say that the state should stay out of the economy at all times (i.e. no bailouts for you) except when preserving the market requires state intervention. Think Obama and big banks.

For those who arent familiar with Mirowski, here is a good piece on Defining Neoliberalism (in which, parenthetically, he provides an excellent takedown of Wikipedia as a forum for learning about anything controversial). To some, he takes a bit of getting used to but he is a terrific writer and you are bound to learn some new words. Have dictionary at the ready!
Defining Neoliberalism

PlutoniumKun , September 30, 2017 at 5:15 am

Ive read a little of Mirowski before, a very good writer, thanks for the link.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 12:53 pm

The basic problem with EU is that what left there is present in it, is of the student/champagne left that is more about glitz and humanitarian causes than they are workers rights and similar that used to define the left both before and after WW2.

I keep bumping into students and young professionals that praise the EU because first of all they got to study abroad under some EU scheme, and now can take their credit card and smartphone and set up camp anywhere their hearts desire within the euro zone.

They are effectively blind to the problems this freeflow cause for long fought for rights and protections of the working man and woman. This while parroting the idea that EU is what has not caused a major European war in a generation or two

makedoanmend , September 30, 2017 at 4:32 am

Being a European leftist myself, I seldom bump into my compatriots who are drinking champagne as if its fizzy water, flashing credit cards and so on. Many are working middle class people struggling to get by; many others are working poor; and some are getting along just fine. In other words, there is an entire gamut of socio-economic backgrounds represented in the left in Europe.

Many of my compatriots are educated. When did leftists have to eschew higher and further education? One of the primary acts of socialist leaning peoples in the late nineteenth century was to lobby for and provide additional channels of education to sections of the community who previously didnt have the resources to study, or simply didnt have time during the day and were denied physical facilities when they did have the time.

Yes, there are many people who seem to be doing fairly well and might espouse leftist viewpoints without bothering to understand better why they espouse such views. I would suggest this is the case with many of our compatriots, whatever their political leanings. And its not so easy either to categorise and identify the working class. I know of several manual labourers who would go ballistic if you suggested they were anything less than middle class citizens.

Also, its rather easy to conflate liberals with leftists? I would argue they are not the same political beast.

Some students in my biology course (an admixture of biochem & agrics) just started an anarchist society. The first in the universitys history. I hope these young and well educated people, who come from many different backgrounds and from several European countries, can explore what leftism means and how it impacts on everyone for good or ill. Equally, I hope they are successful in better understanding the human condition as they down pints of wallop in some pub around town.

Terry Flynn , September 29, 2017 at 7:58 am

Thank you. Just an anecdotal observation that supports this based on 15+ years of Spanish holidays. I always had an apartment so I had options to go eat out with friends I made in the complex or cook for myself.

Spanish restauranteurs, if you got them to give their private views, hated German tourists compared to Brits: the latter would far more often go sod it, were eating out thus benefiting the local hospitality industry (and deal with the resulting credit card debt later!) . I and others noted how less often Germans did this. They clearly had a food budget which dictated finding the nearest LIDL/ALDI and cooking dinner for themselves in their apartments. In the shops (in areas that definitely werent dominated by German holidaymakers) youd see a disproportionate number of Germans buying pasta/bread/sauces – obviously intending to cook most nights.

Ive read on NC the increasing pressure on German domestic budgets following the schroeder reforms etc and anecdotally I saw plenty of living strictly within ones means on display on holidays And Spanish restauranteurs saw it too.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 8:07 am

Ask any tourist town hustler and theyll tell you the way to sell to Brits is to say its on discount! while the way to sell to Germans is to say its the best quality!.

Mind you, its also a cultural thing. I had a French acquaintance say that the big complaint in her small village is that the Dutch insist on bringing their horrible tasteless tomatoes with them on holiday. The Brits will always eat out of course, there is no point to being on holiday otherwise and quite right too.

But on a purely anecdotal basis Id agree with you that Germans seem much less inclined to splash out on holiday (Ive noticed that about supermarkets in Spain/France too). German incomes certainly have been squeezed unnecessarily for 2 decades now (its still amazes me that the German workers blandly accept this in most sectors). Germans used to be known as big spenders when they holidayed in Ireland, but they dont have that reputation anymore.

Terry Flynn , September 29, 2017 at 8:28 am

I agree that Im surprised so many German workers have blithely accepted this constriction on their incomes.

Again, there must be cultural factors at play that mean they have accepted that this is all part of how Germany apparently works so well as a country /society.

I am curious how long this mindset will continue as neoliberalism – even with the better German constraints on its effects – inevitably creeps further up the income distribution. Things like the balanced budget law (if fully adopted and adhered to) will cause increasing problems The AfD electoral success may be the canary in the coalmine.

paul , September 29, 2017 at 9:33 am

while I havent been in Germany in the last few years,last time I was in berlin,amid the cranes(the parliament island seemed to be a noble attempt at architectural landfill) and the infrastructure that was clearly behind demand, I was astonished at how many familiblogged characters were there, on the trams,busses, streets.
Went into a local bar, (much to my better 50% advice), we were the only ones that were not chronically disabled,no beer on tap but they all could hardly been nicer to us.
The german miracle is being worn to a thread was my conclusion.

paul , September 29, 2017 at 10:01 am

Wander into a german village town and you will see how unhappily this is playing out. Visiting the charmingly understated max ernst museum outside koln, I remember a well pensioned hausfrau rolling her eyes in our direction at a couple of young lads (dark skinned of course),her face would have turned milk.
They were just young lads talking loudly.
Because we are both tall and blue eyed she did not seem to have a problem with us at all.

Left in Wisconsin , September 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm

I agree that Im surprised so many German workers have blithely accepted this constriction on their incomes.

The German manufacturing economy is very strong but German workers in the exposed sector are no less subject to job relocation blackmail than workers anywhere else. The macro-economic data might prove that German workers are underpaid, but German wages are based off the export economy and the relocation threat is real. German manufacturing workers are already probably the highest paid in the world (depending on choice of measure). Widening the cost differential with Eastern and Southern Europe, not to mention other places with even lower wages, I think is rightly perceived as risky.

Ignacio , September 29, 2017 at 7:07 pm

I think you have a point here and it has to do with mercantilism. Probably, those workers employed in large factories exporting all around the world know that such mercantilism helps them keep their positions and relatively well paid positions compared with their peers in other countries. This must be the way CDU attracts labor to their side.

Nevertheless, if german tourists spent more in Spain, we would have more money to spend in their factories, somebody should educate them, HA,HA, HA!!!

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 1:09 pm

Apparently it has been sold as a way to keep Germany as an export powerhouse, thus allowing the nation to run a trade surplus.

Never mind that especially since the intro of the Euro, this has lead Germany to effectively operating a beggar-thy-neighbor policy.

Keep in mind that before the Euro, many neighboring nations would operate with a exchange rate hitched to the D-Mark. So if ever (West) Germany tried to push ahead, the others would devalue, and appear to drag Germany back down.

But since the Euro, Germany have been (not necessarily intentionally) using their domestically suppressed wages to muscle the products and services into neighboring markets.

Notice btw that much of the loans causing troubles in the PIIGS came from German banks (French banks were also involved, but to a lesser extent as France do not have the suppressed local wages). So if they fold, effectively Germany banking folds.

Oregoncharles , September 29, 2017 at 2:49 pm

one obvious differential between them and what we would consider neoliberalism is Germanys enormous economic and political success over the last decade or more. Of course, the recent election indicates that a lot of Germans disagree with that judgement, so evidently the bag is mixed in ways not so obvious from here.

That huge accumulation of power is the reason for the sometimes grudging respect granted to Schaueble and Merkel. Its also a great danger to Germany, because in a continent with long historical memories (compared to Americans), it looks more and more like a Fourth Reich. Even though his domestic policies are so extremely neoliberal, Macrons speech looks like the beginning of a rebellion, from the country qualified to lead it. Well see how that goes.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 7:22 pm

Economic might that has since at least the reunification, if not earlier, have been predicated on a, in practice, beggar-thy-neighbor trade policy.

This by suppressing German wages to make German products and services cheaper than local equivalents.

This has been particularly effective since the Euro came into use, as now the Euro nations cant devalue their currencies to counteract this effect.

pietro gori , September 29, 2017 at 5:39 am

What is remarkable about Dr Schäubles tenure was how he invested heavily in maintaining the fragility of the monetary union, rather than eradicating it in order to render the eurozone macro-economically sustainable and resilient

Well, yes, but the fact is that the eurozone cannot possibly be redered maco-economically sustainable
and resilient. That is just well-entrenched wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Varoufakis

Yves Smith Post author , September 29, 2017 at 5:51 am

Thats not quite right. Varoufakis and Jamie Galbraith published a series of finesses, the biggest of which would have been creating an infrastructure bank that would invest, particularly in deficit countries.

A big flaw of government accounting is that it does everything on a cash-flow basis, when private sector accounting separates balance sheet and income statement items. Germany could have supported this work around, using the accounting justification or other pretexts. It didnt want to. By contrast, theyve been extremely creative in figuring out ways to create much more complicated facilities and financial structures to shore up the banks.

Chauncey Gardiner , September 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm

Thank you for this suggestion. I appreciate the values, intelligence, energy and experience of Yanis Varoufakis, and especially his insightful thoughts here on both the nature of the eurozone, Schaubles desire to preserve its fragility, and his wish to strengthen it.

Jamie Galbraith is no slouch, either. I would like to see their suggestions regarding policy initiatives both within and outside existing EU and other supranational structures that they believe could enable Greece to negate further abuse of its citizens, minimize the effects of Teutonic ordoliberal austerity, reverse privatization of the nations public assets, and strengthen the Greek economy. Hard to do when you dont have a sovereign currency and must seek to build alliances. Might have applications elsewhere in the world.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 1:11 pm

That is sadly the one big flaw of Varoufakis, that he is of the champagne left that think the EU both can be saved and is worth saving.

This means that when push comes to shove he will not go all the way, driving for reforms rather than disbandment.

Ignacio , September 30, 2017 at 6:55 am

Well, despite it flaws, the EU is worth saving if it is to the better. There are quite good initiatives coming from the EU and it provides a political framework above traditional nationalism that by itself is very positive. I like that from Varoufakis, his priorities are well positioned.

Mickey Hickey , September 29, 2017 at 6:17 am

@Frenchguy

You hit the nail on the head with Ireland set up one of the biggest tax heavens of all time.. With the help of corporate lobbyists at the European Commission in Brussels without that it would have been shut down quickly. My take on Germany is that they have still not recovered from the Weimar era hyperinflation and economic collapse. Germany tends to cling tightly to strategies whether they be winners or losers. The currency printing presses were cranked up to insane levels. Money was something to be turned into goods or services within minutes.

Then overnight the gold backed Reichsmark was introduced and became an object of adoration that should under no circumstances be spent except for absolute necessities.

The Reichsmark precipitated economic collapse. The inflation phobia of todays Germany stems from the 1920s. Frau Merkel was not and is not a political leader. She is above all a successful politician who tests the direction of the political winds daily and makes micro adjustments accordingly. As for Germans being sticklers for rules, I have a 9 year old grandson who is a stickler for rules even a good portion of Irishness did not save him. I found that he was amenable to changing the rules so I encouraged that and now he is almost Irish.

With respect to German spending on infrastructure over the past twenty years. German infrastructure is in excellent shape compared to the rest of the developed world. Their public transit system is amongst the best in the world. Only in Canada (where I live normally) will you find better infrastructure than in Germany and that is due to large population increases resulting in newer infrastructure. Infrastructure lobbyists are preaching gloom and doom all over the developed world, a grain of salt is advised.

PlutoniumKun , September 29, 2017 at 7:08 am

Its complete hyperbole to describe Ireland as one of the biggest tax havens of all time. It is dwarfed within Europe by Luxembourg (which is a true tax haven in the literal sense) and the various UK off-shore havens. Vastly more money is moved through Switzerland and London for crooked or tax purposes and the Netherlands is an equal in using questionable rules to encourage investment.

Irelands dodgy tax policies, largely designed by T.K. Whitaker , actually predate membership of the EU (1958 to be precise) and were implicitly accepted upon its membership.

Oregoncharles , September 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Sort of like Greeces dodgy balance sheets (if thats the right term), intentionally overlooked when it applied for Eurozone membership?

Of course, if youre right about the others, the EU had compelling reason to overlook a few foibles. I gather Ireland rather paid for it after the GFC, though, and Greece is still paying for it.

PlutoniumKun , September 30, 2017 at 5:28 am

Not really – Ireland was a pioneer in using favourable taxes to bring in jobs to poorer areas. So much so that even China essentially copied the Irish model (so the Tiger economies were actually copying the Celtic tiger, not vice versa to some extent). Essentially, the Irish model was to allow transfer pricing in exchange for screwdriver plants – in addition to special secret deals for promising new companies, like Apple (its often forgotten just how small Apple was when it first moved into Ireland – it was something of a triumph of the Irish development agencies to have identified it). This was all open and obvious when Ireland joined the EU. Essentially, it was considered legitimate at the time for smaller countries to use tactics like this – it was completely in line with academic theory on the time in development economics, especially clustering theories (the idea that if you get enough factories in one area together, they will organically develop into more integrated industries). There was nothing hidden from the EU. If anything, the EU approved as it was seen as important to have star pupils among the smaller members.

Ireland is not a tax haven in the sense that its not a large repository for dodgy money. There are some elements of tax haven laws in the Irish banking system, but its not considered a tax haven in international terms. The main issue is that manufacturing companies based in Ireland are allowed to use loopholes in Irish laws to hide profits. Thats something of a different matter – all countries do this to some extent, Ireland is just a more egregious offender.

And its not really appropriate to compare it to Greece. Greece has been ruined by its poor model and its betrayal by the Eurozone. Ireland has gone from developing country status in the 1950s to one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. The losses from the crash of the Celtic Tiger have been more or less made up. Much as I hate to say it, the Irish economic development model has by any measures been a stunning success. This is why neoliberals love Ireland so much.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 1:17 pm

You are right, and perhaps what is making the workforce willing to accept wage suppression.

This because the cause of the hyperinflation was exchange rates and trade deficits. Germany were forced to pay reparations denominated in foreign currency, but had little to no export industry to earn said currency with (the Ruhr were under French administration for one). Thus they had to print ever more notes to buy the currency to make the payments, and each round would lead to worse inflation.

The crazy thing is that Keynes warned about this, but was ignored.

So based on this, it may well be that German leadership is hell bent on maintaining a trade surplus, even if it means beggaring neighbors and in the long run create a massive buildup of ill will against Germany.

Distrubed Voter , September 29, 2017 at 6:38 am

Thanks for quoting Varoufakis, and thanks for allowing wonderful commentaries again by such knowledgeable readers.

Futility , September 29, 2017 at 10:18 am

Incidentally, Der Spiegel published today an article about a photographer who documented the plight of prostitutes in Greece. There one can see the real world consequences of Schäubles policies. The women (and men) work for 15 Euro or less per customer. A lot of people see this as their last resort to feed their family. The article mentions that Greece increased the VAT from 13% to 24%, making condoms prohibitively expensive for the prostitutes which resulted in a marked increase in HIV infections. How Schäuble can live with himself, I dont know.

WARNING: The article is in German and some of the pictures are not fit for work.

Eustache De Saint Pierre , September 29, 2017 at 11:12 am

There was once an article that was I believe posted here which outlined the fact that the legalised & supposedly efficient German prostitution industry was not all it was cracked up to be – it appeared around the same time that a German woman had her benefits sanctioned due to refusing to work in the industry.

I would just like to say that there is at least one Englishmen who finds cooking a pleasurable experience when on holiday, which when I can manage it due to the lady in my lifes preference would be Italy. Beautiful bread, real mozzarella, white creamy butter, divine proscuitto, & large perfect for Caprese salad tomatoes bought from small grocers – Just some of the treats on offer the make the break very special.

Synoia , September 29, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Even worse, whereas Wolfgang Schäuble understood that austerity plus new loans were catastrophic for countries like Greece (but insisted on them as part of his campaign to discipline France and Italy), his FDP successors at the finance ministry will probably be less enlightened believing that the tough medicine is fit for purpose.

And now perhaps one understands the 30 years war, the Franco-Prussian war, WW I and WW II.

The Im certain Im correct in the face of a other reasonableness.

digi_owl , September 29, 2017 at 7:27 pm

It is effectively a variant of the problem of becoming a monster while one believe one is defeating monsters

Scott , September 29, 2017 at 11:28 pm

Keynes was perceptive, and I can believe his warnings were understood, if not at the time, later. His portrait of Woodrow Wilson out of his depth completely when seated with politicians of France who were adept at bypassing and then destroying the Points the Germans had signed the Armistice because of.

America was not successful at out witting the French. Moral leadership? Wilson just turned into a sidelined ignored & defeated character. It is no wonder Germany went to war again.

The question now is whose warnings are we to hear now?

Michael Hudson would say that capitalism is destroying itself. I have yet to see him on Rachel Maddow who often has David Cay Johnston on, though the questions are about Trump, not the Tax Code. Mr. Johnston could give us a good Tax Code.

Mr. Hudson? Who in Government is listening to him?

Mark P. , September 30, 2017 at 4:08 am

Whos listening to Hudson in the U.S. government?

Well, maybe they arent now. Lots of folks at the DoD and State read him in 1972, right after he left off working for David Rockefeller and wrote SUPER IMPERIALISM: THE ECONOMIC STRATEGY OF AMERICAN EMPIRE as a diagnosis of how the dollar as global reserve currency was going to work once Nixon and Kissinger had taken the U.S. off the gold standard. They used Hudsons book as a how-to manual and did their best to buy up all the copies.

You arent going to see Hudson on the Rachel Maddow show, in short.

[Sep 30, 2017] After article was rejected and publishers yawned, Walt and Mearsheimer finally managed to published The Israel Lobby in 2005

Notable quotes:
"... actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published ..."
"... no other outlet in the United States would publish it ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

The authors of The Israel Lobby went on Chicago radio station WBEZ last week to reflect on their achievement after ten years. No, not 60 Minutes. Not The New York Times. Not MSNBC. But WBEZ radio.

It is a great interview by Jerome McDonnell about a stupendous achievement. As I wrote ten years ago, this book is up there with Rachel Carsons Silent Spring, Upton Sinclairs The Jungle and Ralph Naders Unsafe at Any Speed, as a bombshell that will help transform society.

Below are some choice bits from the interview.

Publication ruined both mens chances to serve in government or in university administration. Mearsheimer:

I had no interest whatsoever in a government position. But I did think that when we wrote the piece, that it would mean that we would never get a high level government position. Even medium level government position. It would also make it almost impossible for us to get any meaningful administrative job in the academic world.

Mearsheimer was then 59 years old and in Chicago. But Steve Walt was a sprightly 50 and on I-95, on the Harvard springboard to presidential elbows. The book forever changed his horizon:

I was academic dean in the Kennedy School. I think its fair to say that both universities did stand by us in the sense that they didnt put any formal censure on us. There were various ways of what you might call informal marginalization at least for a while, because the leaderships in both universities were very nervous about the fallout. Universities dont really like controversy very much.

I did understand that this was probably going to eliminate any possibility of government service in my case, which is something I do regret, because its something I would have appreciated, had that opportunity presented itself at some point down the road.

Walt went on to say that they had to do it. If we werent willing to do that, then hardly anybody else would be. We couldnt lose our jobs. We didnt necessarily need government employment to pay the mortgage.

The two men actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published because doors kept closing. Here is some of the history.

Mearsheimer spoke about the idea first at the American Political Science Association meetings in Boston in 2002; and a friend said the Atlantic wanted to commission an article on that very subject. The Atlantic magazine assigned Walt and Mearsheimer in 2002. Then it got cold feet and killed the piece in early 2005. At that time, Walt said, the two scholars thought that no other outlet in the United States would publish it , but they could flesh it out as a short book, so they consulted a number of publishers and a couple of literary agents.

We got what you would call polite interest but nothing you could call enthusiasm. At one point we basically decided to drop the project entirely.

Jesus H. Christ.

After that, though, an editor who had a copy of the piece showed it to a scholar at UCLA who reached out to Mearsheimer and said the London Review of Books might be interested. The LRB version was eventually published in March 2006 , and provoked an immediate firestorm, Walt said.

Ironically once it provoked that firestorm, suddenly publishers and literary agents recognized that there was a product people were interested in and suddenly they were contacting us and offering us book contracts.

Mearshimer said it was the internet that published that piece as much as the LRB:

The internet was indispensable for making this article available to people all over the world. If this had been published in the London Review of Books in 1985 or 1990 when there was no internet, hardly anybody would have taken notice. But in the age of the internet, this article just ricocheted all over the world very, very quickly.

Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University told me that the morning after the piece had hit the internet, 14 different people had sent him a link for the piece. It was such a big bombshell.

Now here is the sad conclusion. Mearsheimer:

I dont think we– or anyone else– has had much influence on policy. I think the lobby is still as powerful as ever. Its now more out in the open, and thats not necessarily a good thing for a lobby, but its still remarkably effective. This is why you saw all those Republicans falling all over themselves in the 2016 Republican primaries to say how devoted they were to Israel, because they understand that you dont want to cross the lobby.

Or to put that another way: This interview was not on 60 Minutes, MSNBC, or the New York Times!

The authors deal with the fact that the lobby failed on the Iran deal. They never said that the lobby could not be defeated; but that delivering a defeat would require spending a lot of political capital, as President Obama did. And P.S. the lobby isnt finished with the Iran deal! (Republished from Mondoweiss by permission of author or representative)

Dan Hayes > , September 29, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT

The academic courage of Mearsheimer and Walt brings to mind the late Richard Herrnstein who in good conscience felt that his tenured position required him to defend and propagate the truth even if not popular (what would now be classified as non-PC).

Joey > , September 29, 2017 at 6:25 am GMT

the link for the interview if your interested

https://www.wbez.org/shows/worldview/coauthors-reflect-ten-years-after-publishing-controversial-book-the-israel-lobby/8e147fc6-dfa8-459c-894d-d2b8bf7eccf6

Mark James > , September 29, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

The Israel Lobby was a volume that fatefully examined the influence of the State of Israel and its strength of power over broad aspects of money-driven American politics.
They (the IL) need to be put in their place. It cant be done without access to significant media outlets who are intimidated by how the IL works.
Thank goodness they could not stop the Iran deal which caused the vilifying of Obama. Israel indicating that the president was the new focus of antisemitism in the 21st century. Congrats to Walt-Mearsheimer on their anniversary of a great book as we hope to gain traction in minimizing the foreign influence in our policies and political figures.

ThereisaGod > , September 29, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT

Dershowitz wrote on Fox News website:
Quote

The retweeted article by Phillip Giraldi itself contains the usual anti-Semitic tropes: Jews are guilty of dual loyalty; they control politicians, the media and entertainment ; they want the U.S. to fight wars for the country to which they have real allegiance – Israel; they are dangerous to America. Giraldi has been pushing this garbage for years and Plame is one of his fans.

Hard not to be an anti-Semitic troll in these circumstances because the truth about the Israel Lobby IS anti-Semitic (to use the chosen gibberish terminology of those who use this term as a weapon)..

Randal > , September 29, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

Or to put that another way: This interview was not on 60 Minutes, MSNBC, or the New York Times!

Reinforcing the fact that the most urgent problem is not really either antisemitism or jewish dual loyalty, just as it is not racism or antiracism, but rather it is the fact that in each case one side is largely successful in suppressing the free expression of the other, thus biasing the public debate and therefore opinion and therefore policy. The result is policy warped out of true in favour of the powerful identity and other lobbies behind the creation and maintenance of these taboos, whether foreign policy (wars fought in the interests of foreign nations) or domestic (the ongoing attempt to suppress free speech by creating a hate speech exception, active suppression of traditionalist, nativist, Christian etc liberties, globalism, promotion of mass immigration, etc).

The value of Unz is precisely that it stands against that suppression, to publish the Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media.

One of the more controversial pieces here recently was Giraldis piece arguing that there is a problem with dual loyalty amongst jewish nationalists in positions of influence in the US biasing policy towards wars they see as favouring Israel ( Americas Jews Are Driving Americas Wars ). The details can be debated, though nobody yet has come up with any convincing counter to the basic thrust of his piece and most criticisms have been aimed at its tone or at straw men. But what is really important about that piece, and the reason he and it should be supported even by those who do not necessarily agree with his point or the way it was expressed, is precisely that it simply could not be published in any mainstream media outlet, and indeed Giraldi was promptly sacked from even a fringe political publication merely for having had it published elsewhere.

It has been argued persuasively that we cannot be confident of the truth of any position once we have refused to allow the arguments against it to be heard. It may also be the case that genuine freedom of political expression is an unachievable ideal, but at least we should try to get as close as possible to that ideal, rather than meekly surrendering to the leftist position that says some opinions are too dangerous to be heard.

Mr. Anon > , September 29, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

@Avery {Dershowitz wrote on Fox News website:
Quote"The retweeted article by Phillip Giraldi itself contains the usual anti-Semitic tropes: Jews are guilty of dual loyalty }

Dershowitz spearheaded years-long efforts to have Pollard released.
A Jewish-American man, born in Texas, who worked for the foreign State of Israel, spied on his putative home country of US of America, and caused great harm and damage to United States.

Pretty hard not to conclude that Dershowitz's loyalty to his putative home country is somewhat tarnished. If Deshowitz et al had any real smarts they'd throw the filthy traitor under the bus and forget about him.

But obviously they can't: and the question is "Why?".
And the answer is 'The gentleman doth protest too much' .

If Deshowitz et al had any real smarts theyd throw the filthy traitor under the bus and forget about him. But obviously they cant: and the question is Why?.

No, they know exactly what they are doing. There is a reason why Israel and its supporters lobbied for leniency for Pollard. It is important for the continued recruitment of new spies that the recruiter demonstrate loyalty to the old ones, even after they get caught – especially after they get caught. The Russians did the same thing. Dershowitz, and the others who advocated Pollards release, wanted Pollard to be well taken care of, because they want there to be more Pollards.

[Sep 29, 2017] Escalating Tensions Over Kurdish Referendum by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... A unilateral declaration of independence wont be accepted by any of the surrounding states, and very few other governments would recognize the new state because of the manner of its separation. ..."
"... Turkey, Iran, and the Iraqi government were already ratcheting up economic pressure on the region because of the vote, but a declaration of independence would likely trigger immediate military responses from one or more of them. ..."
"... The situation has quickly escalated to a point where none of the governments involved is willing to back down or compromise, and that makes it much harder to avoid the worst-case scenario of a major armed conflict breaking out. Both Turkey and Iran fear the creation of a Kurdish state because of the possible implications for the aspirations of their own Kurdish minorities. ..."
Sep 29, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
... continue to rise following the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan:

Iraqi Kurds overwhelmingly voted in favor of independence in a referendum on Monday, which Mr. Ali said obliges Mr. Barzani to negotiate independence from the rest of Iraq. Baghdad has refused to enter such negotiations, and Mr. Ali said that if it maintained that attitude, Kurdistan would be forced to unilaterally declare independence.

A unilateral declaration of independence wont be accepted by any of the surrounding states, and very few other governments would recognize the new state because of the manner of its separation.

Turkey, Iran, and the Iraqi government were already ratcheting up economic pressure on the region because of the vote, but a declaration of independence would likely trigger immediate military responses from one or more of them.

The situation has quickly escalated to a point where none of the governments involved is willing to back down or compromise, and that makes it much harder to avoid the worst-case scenario of a major armed conflict breaking out. Both Turkey and Iran fear the creation of a Kurdish state because of the possible implications for the aspirations of their own Kurdish minorities.

Ariane Tabatabai explained the Iranian governments view earlier this week:

Rather than seeing it as a single, contained event, Tehran views it as opening the door to a more comprehensive effort at cleaving the Kurdish territories off Iran, Syria, and Turkey to create a new country in the region.

Because Baghdad opposed the referendum and opposes the creation of a Kurdish state, Turkey and Iran can both dress up their respective responses as helping the Iraqi government to preserve its territorial integrity.

If Barzani were reckless enough to follow through on the threat his spokesman made, he would be setting up his new state for a fall.

The U.S. should do what it can to dissuade Barzani from doing this, and it should appeal to all of the parties to dial down their rhetoric and refrain from taking any more provocative actions. If tensions continue to escalate as they have over the last week, the disaster that many observers feared will follow.

[Sep 28, 2017] John Kiriakou on blowing the whistle on the CIA torture network

Notable quotes:
"... Doing Time Like A Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison ..."
Sep 15, 2017 | www.antiwar.com
Famed whistleblower John Kiriakou, the former chief of counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan, returns to the show to discuss his latest book on Abu Zubaydah "The Convenient Terrorist" which he co-authored with Guantanamo whistleblower Joseph Hickman. Kiriakou retells his history at the CIA and explains why the crux of the Abu Zubaydah saga were Zubaydah's lies about supposed ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which helped the U.S. spin the lies that led to the Iraq War. Kiriakou explains the American fetish with torture and his role in blowing the whistle on the torture network within the CIA and explains how the United States made the decision to invade Iraq long before the invasion. Finally Kiriakou discusses how the drone program is the greatest recruitment tool for Islamic terrorists.

John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer and author of Doing Time Like A Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison. Kiriakou was the only CIA officer to be jailed over the CIA's torture regime-for telling the truth. Follow him on Twitter @JohnKiriakou .

[Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.fff.org

Review of America's War for the Greater Middle East by Andrew J. Bacevich (New York: Random House, 2016; 480 pages)

Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.

By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States. Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon and its vast, permanent war machine.

The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)

Furies beyond reckoning

The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights.

It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:

  1. Afghanistan (Cyclone, 1980–1989; Infinite Reach, 1998; Enduring Freedom, 2001–2015; Freedoms Sentinel, 2015–present);
  2. Bosnia (Deny Flight, 1993–1995; Deliberate Force, 1995; Joint Endeavor, 1995–1996);
  3. East Africa (Enduring Freedom -- Trans Sahara, 2007–present);
  4. Egypt (Bright Star, 1980–2009);
  5. Iraq (Desert Storm, 1991; Southern Watch, 1991–2003; Desert Strike, 1996; Northern Watch, 1997–2003; Desert Fox, 1998; Iraqi Freedom, 2003–2010; New Dawn, 2010–2011; Inherent Resolve, 2014–present);
  6. Iran (Eagle Claw, 1980; Olympic Games, 2007–2010)
  7. Kosovo (Determined Force, 1998; Allied Force, 1999; Joint Guardian, 1999–2005);
  8. Lebanon (Multinational Force, 1982–1984);
  9. Libya (El Dorado Canyon, 1986; Odyssey Dawn, 2011);
  10. North/West Africa (Enduring Freedom -- Trans Sahara, 2007– present);
  11. Pakistan (Neptune Spear, 2011);
  12. Persian Gulf (Earnest Will, 1987–1988; Nimble Archer, 1987; Praying Mantis, 1988);
  13. Saudi Arabia (Desert Shield, 1990; Desert Focus, 1996);
  14. Somalia (Restore Hope, 1992–1993; Gothic Serpent, 1993); Sudan (Infinite Reach, 1998);
  15. Syria (Inherent Resolve, 2014–present);
  16. Turkey (Provide Comfort, 1991);
  17. Yemen (Determined Response, 2000)

While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere with, either militarily or ideologically.

As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance, after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism. They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)

Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.

Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government, market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that simply isnt true.

All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.

War and diplomacy

Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.

This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War. In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450. The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.

There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.

Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency -- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS, which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.

As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.

Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.

That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.

This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of Future of Freedom .

[Sep 27, 2017] Philip Giraldi's Remedy for Wars by Israel Shamir

Accept in Jewishness of neocons is counterproductive. They perform their role because this is what MIC which controls and pays them want them to perform. The fact that there are selected for this role is no different then large percent of Jews in academia: they provide to be talented propagandists.
Some commenters definitely mix effects of neoliberalism on the US society with the influence of Jews. That's pathetic.
Notable quotes:
"... [Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will be trashed.] ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

...The recent example is a piece by Philip Giraldi on the Unz.com, which still produces waves on the web. In his piece he rolled the list of Jews who were keen on Iraq invasion, and who are pushing the US now into an attack on Iran: "David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen And yep, they're all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives."

Giraldi proposed to keep Jews out of the positions of influence on the foreign affairs, in order to keep the US out of wars it does not need. Giraldi wrote: "We don't need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver."

Actually, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote at the time (in April 2003): "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible."

I also wrote things in the same vein during Iraq invasion, and it is good to see that this thesis did not die but keeps resurging from time to time. One could add that these very persons are pushing for conflict with Russia, demonise Putin and attack Trump, though the Orange Man tries to fulfill their wishes as an eager Santa Claus of diligent Lizzie.

While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews out of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews in late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't overrepresented in the establishment. A Jewish couple, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg has been fried on the electric chair in 1953, and there were few objections. McCarthy terrorized Jews. The word Holocaust had yet to make its first appearance (in 1968). Jews were still kept out of clubs and out of high level politics. Israel had been threatened by the US (in 1956) rather than assisted.

And still, the free-from-Jews US had fought in Korea the terrible three-year long war (1950-1953), and in Vietnam (up to 1974), invaded and caused regime change in Guatemala and Iran, violently interfered in elections in France and Italy, and had fought the fierce Cold War against the USSR. In all these campaigns, the US Jews were actually for peace and against war. The Jews were nowhere in power when the US fought its wars against Spain and Mexico. The non-Jewish US made a coup in Iran, and non-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to invade Iran. Jews weren't involved in the conquest of Panama, in Nicaragua intervention, in Granada operation.

Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America. Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so wonderful?

The idea of correcting or channelling the excessive Jewish influence is a reasonable one, but can this goal be achieved by keeping Kristol and Krauthammer out of media (an excellent thought anyway)?

The Jewish prominence in the US is inbuilt in the US culture and tradition. Karl Marx wrote that "in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression". He said that all Yankees are Jews, behave like Jews, aspire to be Jews and even are circumcised like Jews. So it is natural that real Jews succeed better in being Jews than their Gentile neighbours. Werner Sombart added that Jews were prominent from the very dawn of America and they created American-style capitalism the way that fits them. The Jews are prominent now because America is custom-built for Jews to fit and suit them, he said.

This is what should be corrected, and then the Jewish scribes, these Krauthammers will be out of business of inciting wars. Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't be able to influence the Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and wealth, aspire to God instead of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy neighbour and the problem will be solved.

If this is too tall an order, make it a smaller one. Unseating Ledeens and Frums (and I think they deserve tar and feathers all right) will not do the trick unless the rich Jews are un-wealthed. Without excessive Jewish wealth, there will be no excessive Jewish push for wars. And provided that more than half of all US wealth is in few Jewish hands, freeing it will make a colossal effect of improving life of every American, even every person on earth.

And why to stop there? The super-rich non-Jews are as Jewish as any Jew. They share the same aspirations. Strip them of their assets. Why should we worry whether Jeff Bezos is a Jew by blood or faith, or he is not? He behaves like a Jew, and that is enough. Establish a ceiling of wealth, a counterpart of minimal wage. This idea has been mulled: Jeremy Corbyn called for the maximum wage. Taxes can do it easily – in wonderful Sweden of 1950s, top tax rate was 102%. Or this can be achieved in a more festive way of stripping the richest men of their ill-gotten wealth on the main square of Washington, DC on Mardi Gras Sunday. Do not say this is a punishment for their diligence – other way around, this is assistance on their way to spiritual improvement. Too many assets imprison the spirit.

This would be good for Jews and for all concerned: while the average Jewish wealth in the US had been lagging below total average (that is as long as Jews were less wealthy than Gentiles), the Jews acted in the interests of the people. Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy than all Americans, and that was it: they ceased to strive for the common good.

Jews could be a force for good if their excessive tendency to collect material goods is nipped in the bud. So it was in the USSR: as the Jews could not make money, they went into science and worked for the common good. Even oligarchs could be good managers instead of pain in the neck for the society.

This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go for a palliative if you can go for the jugular?

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 27, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

I thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?

One year after that, America entered WWI

SimplePseudonymicHandle > , September 27, 2017 at 5:33 am GMT

@Anonymous I thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?

One year after that, America entered WWI... The US entered WWI in 1917

Grandpa Charlie > , September 27, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT

Israel Shamir is an entertaining writer and sometimes informative (especially about Russia). But he is prone to hyperbole. For example:

[N]on-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to invade Iran

Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America. Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so wonderful?

– Shamir

The Special Forces operation to extract USA's hostages in Iran fell way short of anything that anyone would call an "invasion." As for Venezuela:

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) fired back at President Trump on Friday, saying Congress "obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela" after Trump said he wouldn't rule out using a military option in the country.

"No, Congress obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela," Sasse, a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, said in a statement. "Nicolas Maduro is a horrible human being, but Congress doesn't vote to spill Nebraskans' blood based on who the Executive lashes out at today."

– The Hill

This entire article is based on Shanir's exaggerationa: First, as I recall, Giraldi never suggested any form of censorship of news media or commentary; more likely Giraldi would like to see effectively less censorship, especially censorship on behalf of Israel and Zionism. Second, Giraldi, as I recall, never made his suggestions as promising an end to war in general. Third, Giraldi never suggested that removing Jews from positions of influence relating to USA's global security/strategy would keep the USA out of all unnecessary wars, only that it would help in getting the USA out of unnecessary wars in the ME -- wars that do not enhance and indeed detract from our national security.

I feel certain that Giraldi knows as much as anyone about the evil influence of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex -- which obviously includes major gentile players as well as Zionist neocons. For me, the matter is simple: anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA and Israel should be barred from any position of influence in USA's military or related governmental activities. The same is true for anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA and the People's Republic of China or Ireland or Russia or the Vatican or wherever.

Edgar > , September 27, 2017 at 5:56 am GMT

It's been a week or so since I read Giraldi's piece, but I recall him saying keep Jews in the US out of policy matters relating to Israel. "Put the Jewish members in charge of Korea Policy. . . " I believe was Giraldi's example. You seem to be punching a straw man with your otherwise pedestrian argument. But thanks for supporting Giraldi's basic thesis!

Now these pitiful William-F-Buckley-tards should put Giraldi's article back up; Shamir confirms that Giraldi is right.

Priss Factor > , Website September 27, 2017 at 6:19 am GMT

While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews out of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews in late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't overrepresented in the establishment.

This is an interesting question, but there is a difference between Then and Now.

In the past, US expansionism was part of the global norm. Imperialism was common and accepted all over the world. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire. Russians kept expanding into Siberia and Central Asia. It also swallowed parts of Central Europe. Manchus took over China and gobbled up more territory as part of Chinese empire. There were native imperialist wars in Africa before white man came. And Mexico was also the product of empire building. Spanish took it from Aztec Imperialists, and the Conquis took more land. And Spanish also took Philippines. Brits and French were creating vast empires. US was created out of empire-building and continued as such.

So, US warmongering in the past was part of the world norm. Everyone did it. Also, empire-building was seen as glorious for the Whole People. So, even though the elites benefited the most, there was a sense of shared glory among all Britons over the British Empire. All Frenchmen were to share the glory of the French Empire. And US expansion into SW territories was great not only for elites but for Anglo settlers who built new lives in those areas. And it was even good for Mexers in the region because Anglos did so much than Mexers had done before when SW territories had belonged to Mexico. It's like Ramon has it pretty good working for gringos. He was like the Guillermo of his day.

Alfred > , September 27, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT

@Anonymous I thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?

One year after that, America entered WWI... WWI was planned and executed to plan by a British elite – just like the 2 Boer wars. In all these wars, wealthy Jewish bankers helped get them started – the Cassels and the Rothschilds principally. Many leading British politicians – e.g. Winston Churchill and his father – were deeply in debt to these people. The much touted "Balfour Declaration" was the product of a British prime minister who was in debt to them – as was his uncle Lord Salisbury.

Randolph Churchill died with debts of the order of $8m in today's money to these bankers. It is all well-documented.

Suggested reading:

"The Secret Origins of the First Wold War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor

https://amzn.com/1780576307

However, blaming ordinary Jews or American Jews for WWI is as ridiculous as blaming the French for their corrupt Poincaré or the ordinary British for the warmonger Churchill.

Grandpa Charlie > , September 27, 2017 at 6:53 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie It occurs to me that it's possible that Shamir intended the article as humor, as camp, as a parody of ((anti-Jewish)) commentary here at UR. It's complicated.

Proud_Srbin > , September 27, 2017 at 7:03 am GMT

Mother Nature, no make monoliths. Monolithic nations or states do not exist, have never existed and never will.

Kiza > , September 27, 2017 at 7:05 am GMT

This article is a mix of truths and bull. But the key problem with the article is that it never mentions the main tool of the Zionists – the petrodollar and the main conduit of the Zionist power in US – The Federal Reserve. Luckily, China and Russia are working on dethroning FED by diminishing petrodollar. This will have the world-wide beneficial effect of deglobalisation: removing the ability to print money indefinitely will curb the ambitions of both "the rich Jews and the rich who want to be Jews" to rule the World. Power will become distributed again and the Jews will have to compete with the Chinese for domination.

Diminishing petrodollar is a much healthier solution than the Marxist's solution of removing wealth from the wealthy Jews and wannabe Jews. Once one starts removing wealth from individuals, one does not know where and when to stop.

Tom Welsh > , September 27, 2017 at 7:53 am GMT

@Anonymous It's quite hard to know such things for certain, since a lot of highly-paid professional effort has gone into concealing them from public scrutiny.

For some reason I am reminded of George Carlin's weirdly logical observation, "One can never know for sure what a deserted area looks like".

Art > , September 27, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy than all Americans, and that was it: they ceased to strive for the common good.

For the next 30 years through excessive debt the Jew Allen Greenspan, head of the Fed, put a stake in the heart of America's economy – end of story.

Jew dominated corporate America turned its head away from its fiduciary responsibilities to customers, employees, neighbors, investors, and country – they instead turned to raw, naked, personal greed. Junk bonds got the ball rolling.

In America you no longer do business with your neighbors – you must do business with Wall Street – Wall Street gets a slice of all your spending. Guess what – unlike you neighbors – Wall Street doesn't give dam about you – PERIOD.

Companies change ownership with the tough of a keyboard creating great uncertainty for all those invoved. This creates instability.

Ownership must be returned to local people. Then stability will return to culture.

Think Peace -- Art

The Alarmist > , September 27, 2017 at 8:23 am GMT

Remember the old adage for success in the world of WASPs: "Think Yiddish, dress British."

A serious case can be made for replacing the income tax, which has the potential to keep people from becoming wealthy, with a wealth tax, which has the effect of making people pay in proportion to their longer-term success and influence in the system. A millennial might say that this would be a more sustainable way to run things.

Randal > , September 27, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go for a palliative if you can go for the jugular?

If you think that imposing a general prohibitive wealth tax or somehow banning being rich is "not more complicated" than simply recognising the problems of dual loyalty and ulterior group motives, both in general and in particular relation to jewish elites, and addressing them in some form, then you would seem rather unrealistic to me.

There has been no convincing argument raised against Giraldi's point – the closest to a response so far seems to be the one you raise here – that jews aren't the only people or groups pushing the US towards war, which is rather irrelevant, and the insistence that not all jewish people do so, which is both obvious and likewise irrelevant.

Regardless, and whether or not one agrees with Giraldi's particular diagnosis of one aspect of the ills of modern US sphere society (I do, broadly), one should support him and it anyway simply because its expression is so obviously being punished by those who seek to suppress it. His prompt dismissal by the contemptible American Conservative illustrates the truth of the point made by those who complain of politically correct censorship being used by identity lobbyists and those who kowtow to them to control dissent.

The latter is a far bigger problem in the societies of the modern US sphere than the particular issue of foreign policy identified by Giraldi.

Jean de Peyrelongue > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT

I like what is being said:
Before the 1960s the Jews in the US were not occupying the front stage but their influence was far from being negligeable. They were acting like a fifth column and as such, they have been active in triggering and supporting the Bolsheviks revolution, in getting the US to enter WW I and latter on WW II.
It is also obvious that when they were not occupying the front stage, they were courting the people in the US and in all the countries where they were living; to get accepted and their contribution to the societies was important.
Today as they are running the show in the western world, they are acting like slaves drivers and are treating others like they treat the Palestinians.
Having conquered the US and its dominions in Europe, they want to get the rest of the world. They never have enough. It looks like they want to take a revenge against all the others like they have done against the Russian during the revolution. They are no more working for improving the world but for running it and wreaking a revenge for having living the Diaspora .

The only way to stop them driving us to Armageddon is to have them bankrupted; the whole world might be in jeopardy but that is the only way to avoid a nuclear apocalypse.

Paul Harrison > , September 27, 2017 at 9:22 am GMT

[Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will be trashed.]

I have never found Jews particularly cheap or materialistic. Maybe as a Scot I have a warped perspective. Denied the chance at noble titles or churchly favor, money has been their only path to power and distinction. What I do see as a problem is the combination of extreme ability and extreme solidarity. Put that together with their adversarial relationship to the gentile world developed over the centuries and you have a recipe for harmful culture war. Producing sexy movies and violent rap, the war on Christmas, the attempt to limit free speech -- all are forms of aggression or payback for aggression, as I see it. To be sure, not all Jews or even most feel this emotion, but the ones that do work hard to promote it. According to Pew Research, 94% of self-identified Jews identify as pro-choice. The next highest group is mainline Protestants at 59%. Such a great disparity suggests to me that the issue is largely symbolic for them. I suspect you would find similar disparities on gun rights, attitudes to pornography, and religion in the public square. It's rare for Muslims or Hindus to complain about having to hear Christmas carols, but many Jews want to sick the Homeland Security SWAT Team on the school choir if a few syllables of Hark the Herald Angels are overheard. For that reason, I feel more threatened by the billions of Adelson, Bezos, Saban, Soros, and Singer than by Gates or Buffett, even though the latter are also quite liberal.

Wrenchturner > , September 27, 2017 at 9:23 am GMT

@Anonymous This is typical obfuscation. Goyim we didn't have power we just controlled the newspapers.

Serg Derbst > , September 27, 2017 at 9:43 am GMT

Why focus so much on Jewish wealth? The main problem of the American system has a simple name: capitalism. It is wealth and excessively rich people as such, who are the problem, and with a certain amount of wealth, you stop giving a fork about your religious, ethnic, national, or other alliances. All you care about are interests rates. Rich people also have a tendency to turn psychopath and get hooked on power – after all, you need to utilize that money, and you can only buy so many yachts, ferraris and mansions, right?

Scratch capitalism by changing the monetary system from a debt money system to a full or free money system, in which private banking based on loans and credits is called out for what it is: criminal fraud. The debt of the many – including government – is the wealth of a few. You wouldn't have this sick connection between wealth and poverty, if money creation wasn't based on debt, and only allowed to a (computerized and automated) fourth state power called the monetative. Read German thinkers to understand that, start with Karl Marx to understand the social and spiritual errors of capitalism, read Silvio Gesell and, more up-to-date, German economist Bernd Senf and Austrian economist Franz Hörmann to understand the possible alternatives. Educate yourself about The Wörgl Experiment to get an historical example from Austria where Free Money worked wonders before it was scrapped by the bankster elite and their political servants during the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Only free money could guarantee free markets (and you wouldn't even need taxes anymore). In capitalism with debt money, all you ever get is monopolies and corporate cartels.

Add to that a real democracy – no congress, no parliament, no parties, the legislative shall only be the people based on direct democracy. We now have the technological means to realize what has never been realized in human history: free markets, democracy, and something which could be called communism. Don't flinch from reading this last word, the stuff you commonly refer to as communism must be called bolshevism and has had nothing to do with actual communist ideals, which can never be realized in a centralized fashion as in capitalism (centralized wealth) or in bolshevism (centralized state power). But thanks to IT at our disposal, it can now be realized in form of free money and direct democracy.

daniel le mouche > , September 27, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

'Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't be able to influence the Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and wealth, aspire to God instead of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy neighbour and the problem will be solved.'

Would that this were possible. Great ideas in this article, but realistically, could any of it be implemented? It would take great anti-Jewish fervency, which, as you note, Americans don't have as they have always behaved as Jews.

Greg Bacon > , Website September 27, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

What about the American Jewish bankers–like Schiff–that bankrolled Lenin and his thugs to sneak back into Russia, then proceeded–with his Jewish buddies–to steal the Revolution from Russians that had deposed the Czar?

Lenin's Bolshevik Jew radicals turned that Christian nation into a Commie nightmare, murdering around 60 million Russians in the process and turned a Christian nation that had been on friendly terms with the USA into an implacable foe, eventually leading to a five decades long 'Cold War.'

The USSR Commies tried to export their madness to Europe, specifically Germany, which led to the popularity and rise of Hitler and eventually WW II.
During WWII, FDR had a number of Jewish advisers, like Henry Morgenthau, Jr. whose post-WW II plan for Germany was so punitive, it gave Germans the will to fight harder in the closing days to prevent the plans implementation, thereby dragging out the war.

It was President Truman's support for creating Israel–by stealing it from Palestine–and his recognition of that apartheid nightmare that led to many an ill, including 9/11.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/03/truman-and-israel/

I like Mr. Shamir's writings, but I think he needs to hit the history books again and refresh his memory.
Just stay away from Wikipedia, which publishes a lop-sided version of the past.

[Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

Highly recommended!
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite (nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC, Deutsche Welle and Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.

During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against the rulers.

So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.

After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than those who couldn't watch Western television.

But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional wisdom.

As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."

Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.

The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium of the people.'"

Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea: Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.

Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had during the Republican primaries that he won.

Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.

Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from anger to dismissal to laughter.

In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network purchased Current TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.

Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.

You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.

That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America , but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster China Central Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government that operates cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia.

After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of the day watching these foreign networks?

Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton.

In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.

According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

And in a long cover story in The New York Times Magazine this month, with the headline, " RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has "built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be impossible to stop."

But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can access its channel, not those who actually watch it."

As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.

The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."

Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.

But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011 tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT, Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective, these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th Century.

The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.

But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.

Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it.

Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the receivers.

There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket.

Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")

Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans.

In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.

Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and the National Interest.

The Color of Celery , says: September 26, 2017 at 1:20 am

For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.

RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.

It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled. Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.

polistra , says: September 26, 2017 at 3:39 am
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to understand the world.

Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out the external info.

Meddlesome , says: September 26, 2017 at 7:44 am
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".

Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to be.

Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.

The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China. But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in scale and impact.

Fran Macadam , says: September 26, 2017 at 9:24 am
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States, have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."

It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today, unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.

Pelayo Viriato , says: September 26, 2017 at 10:20 am
@The Color of Celery:

So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their worldview in the process?

You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic assertion.

ZGler , says: September 26, 2017 at 11:45 am
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
Mike Johnson , says: September 26, 2017 at 3:33 pm
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.

[Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Jenny G · 3 days ago

Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.

Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.

I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished" party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment to the country.

Felix · 4 days ago
The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint.
follyofwar · 3 days ago
Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats.
olde reb · 3 days ago
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.

Detailed in --. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.

Guysth · 3 days ago
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.

Peace is not in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis, and this could not be allowed to happen .

Same $hit different pile.

doray · 3 days ago
Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge.
astraeaisabella · 3 days ago
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/25... This may seem relevant, but considering Trump's visit to SAudi Arabia and then immediately "Israel", you might find it interesting.
follyofwar · 3 days ago

David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.

But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.

RedRubies · 3 days ago
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.

When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.

The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.

Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on (http://headlinebits.com/2017-06-21/deep-state-hillary-clinton-staffers-still-have-security-clearances-access-to-sensitive-governmen.AlsHBgBSVVwAV1FWVwdSAwBWAg8HXQYE.html) .

You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!

The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.

Stephen M. St. John · 3 days ago

"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.

This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .

Schlüter 91p · 3 days ago
Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe...
Dick · 3 days ago
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.

Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.

[Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
Jun 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at The eXiled

Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because we're free.

Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.

But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation" and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.

And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.

Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule the world.

Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:

"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians."

Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation" conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin agent.

Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,

"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.

" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything must seem possible."

It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's history.

Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy. Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.

PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?

One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.

Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what MJ's partner writes now:

RUSSIAN EXPANSION

Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different rules. Or maybe no rules at all.

The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not.

* * *

What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.

Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.

As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you.

It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.

By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:

To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.

So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks - yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists" while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.

* * *

Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.

To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs. A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything - Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.

Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting women's right to abortion.

Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".

In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant the rest of us to hate Russians too.

Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis! Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as, well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last November.

Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries' minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then, as now.

"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton

What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex. It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans. It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.

Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.

Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!

And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.

A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political 'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s, he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."

Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . .

To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986.

Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.

Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.

These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative, view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale. The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening

The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".

I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation" history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.

After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history), Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation" is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda, disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.

Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps and spooks who fed Denton's committee.

glmmph , June 3, 2017 at 7:00 am

I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form.

Disturbed Voter , June 3, 2017 at 7:23 am

This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the 1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-( And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother hiding it anymore.

John Zelnicker , June 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)

witters , June 3, 2017 at 7:29 am

"Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-" Is there a Darwin Award for this?

Disturbed Voter , June 3, 2017 at 9:30 am

American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today.

oh , June 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%.

Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they cash in on the chant du jour.

Baby Gerald , June 3, 2017 at 8:16 am

Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.

It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.

Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say

American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union.

As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political inclinations, I never paid it any attention.

A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream. Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign, their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material to make any McCarthyite proud.*

[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the magazine he co-founded?]

Damson , June 3, 2017 at 8:40 am

Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :

"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.

It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.

They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.

Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.

Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989.

Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."

nowhere , June 3, 2017 at 11:26 am

Hmm "but at the least the Reps still don't like paying for it." I strongly disagree. War is the only thing Rs don't mind openly supporting.

Ptolemy Philopater , June 3, 2017 at 3:15 pm

One can not repeat often enough: War Crimes Tribunals! How to disincentivize the madness.

Skip Intro , June 4, 2017 at 2:14 am

I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto .

Mary Wehrhein , June 3, 2017 at 9:40 am

Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole sex and reproductive moral prism.

Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.

The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore. Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.

GERMO , June 3, 2017 at 9:42 am

Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though!

Pespi , June 3, 2017 at 10:33 am

This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 11:25 am

Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative. And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing. The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie terrorist tactics for decades.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 2:28 pm

file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.

John Zelnicker , June 3, 2017 at 2:45 pm

@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.

REDPILLED , June 3, 2017 at 11:39 am

Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.

Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack of public awareness of it.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 11:42 am

land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all. Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare world.

mpalomar , June 3, 2017 at 9:43 pm

"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information."

Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.

sunny129 , June 3, 2017 at 1:57 pm

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference

Darn , June 4, 2017 at 4:48 am

Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far? He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.

[Sep 24, 2017] A German Election Analysis

Sep 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The result is bad for the top-candidates Merkel (CDU) and Schulz (SPD). The CDU lost 9 percentage points compared to the 2013 election, the SPD lost 5.

Voter migration analysis will show that the CDU loss was caused by Merkel's centrist policies and especially her gigantic immigration ("refugees") mistake. It caused the right-wing CDU voters to go over to the new right-wing party AFD.

Her party will punish Merkel for this catastrophic result. I doubt that she has two years or more years left in her position. Her party will shun her and move away from the center and back into its traditional moderate-right corner.

The voters lost by the formerly moderate-left, now also centrist SPD went over to the liberal-leftish FDP. The FDP is back in the game after having been kicked out of parliament is the 2013 elections.

The Greens and the Left Party results are mostly unchanged.

Over the last 20 years both of the traditionally big parties, CDU and SPD, had moved from their moderate-right, respectively moderate-left positions towards centrist neo-liberalism. In consequence The Left split off the SPD and now the AFD from the CDU.

The AFD is by no means a "Nazi" party though a few Nazis may try to hide under its mantle. The voters are mostly traditionalist, staunch conservatives and anti-globalization. They were earlier part of the CDU.

The SPD will not want to enter another government coalition with Merkel, It played Merkel's junior partner over the last eight years and that led to ever increasing voter losses. It nearly killed the party. The mistake of selecting the colorless Schulz as top-candidate will lead to some (necessary) blood loss in the party's leadership. SPD head Gabriel will, like Schulz, have to step back from leadership positions.

Merkel will have difficulties forming a coalition. She will avoid the AFD as her campaign had discriminated that party as "Nazi" (in itself a huge strategic mistake). She will try to build a coalition with the Green and the FDP. It will be enough to rule for a while but is a somewhat unstable configuration.

We will likely have new elections within the next two years.

Anon | Sep 24, 2017 1:53:15 PM | 1

Just like the American election with Clinton, western media doing everything to uncritically support Merkel and demonize, especially AFD, the oppostional parties. Propaganda all over.
dan of steele | Sep 24, 2017 2:10:19 PM | 2
having just been exposed to the AFD party and somewhat taken aback by their huge gains, I used the google to find out a bit about them. one of the first hits is from the Intercept where they talk about a very wealthy woman who just happens to be a Trump supporter as well funneling money and fake news to support this "scary" new party. B wrote about how right wing parties gained support because the traditional left has abandoned them. this is probably the case in Germany as well with the SPD being quite disappointing to many. The FDP seems to have gained a bit due to time passing and people not remembering how badly they got screwed by Westerwelle and his crew some years back.

anyway, for what it is worth, here is the link to the Intercept story

[Sep 24, 2017] Trump's UN Speech A Pleasant Surprise!Especially On Immigration, Refugees by John Derbyshire

Sep 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

What I saw in the speech was a long-overdue redressing of the balance. Of course nationalism is not an unqualified good; of course nationalism has its pathologies. But you can say the same of globalism.

One thing Donald Trump's election victory last year demonstrated is that many of us think globalism has gone too far, has over-reached, especially in the absurd and nation-destroying doctrine of Open Borders. We want to redress the balance. The good thing about Trump's speech; It sounds as though he wants to redress that balance, too.

[Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here. ..."
"... Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction. ..."
"... Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. ..."
"... The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred. ..."
"... Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy." Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump. ..."
"... When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future? ..."
"... The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat. ..."
"... Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of "fake news," Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report . The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa. ..."
"... With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails , nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense. ..."
"... "In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented . "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true!and it very clearly isn't!the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump's campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him." ..."
"... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ..."
"... Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted. ..."
"... Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington's political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators? "We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance," Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. "Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective." ..."
"... In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good. ..."
"... "If we don't take over today's platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King's College London. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.

Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.

The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc , Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."

Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world. "Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively: "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."

Really?

Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.

For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - "what caused the Iraq War 2003," he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false . The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.

Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.

That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right.

'Like being gay in the 1950s'

Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote:

I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going...
The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred.

Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s."

"We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can't even express themselves. Really, it's like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that's a huge problem because there's open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."

Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where "Googlers" enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can't even express themselves," says Damore, who was very cynically fired from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange.

Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy, it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or otherwise.

Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy." Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump.

When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future?

In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of news from the political right today.

In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic strongholds , like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the Economist reported :

On the eve of America's presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent.
The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat.

Who will guard us against the Google guardians?

Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of "fake news," Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report . The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa.

In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information.

The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after Trump jokingly told a rally: "I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they began pushing the fake news story, with help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most inopportune time for the Democrats.

With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails , nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense.

According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails.

"In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented . "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true!and it very clearly isn't!the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump's campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him."

Blame Russia

The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of the political spectrum.

Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google, addressed the question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in Trump's favor.

"You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work better, absolutely," he said.

Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think "we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources..."

That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire worldview? To ask the question is to answer it...

"Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify as fake news," Pichai said.

And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," to determine what should be flagged and what should not.

Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Who will guard the guards themselves? -- especially since these groups also have their own heavy political axes to grind.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted.

Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington's political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators? "We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance," Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. "Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective."

McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization "creates enormous financial burdens for the program." Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have registered millions of views.

"Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary – from the left or the right," Black told the Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray. "It's not about specific videos... It's about pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC."

In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good.

"If we don't take over today's platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King's College London.

It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise, it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known as 1984.

Reprinted with permission from RT .

[Sep 23, 2017] The Crazy Imbalance of Russia-gate by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia? ..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.

It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre" rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically, we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations to war.

Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign although some of the ads ran after the election.

Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia. The Washington Post reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.

Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located 470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.

Here is how the Times described those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)

Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.

"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post reported

Facebook Complies

So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!

In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states."

So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.

But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?

After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.

And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?

Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal document entitled " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.

However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more "regime changes" in Syria and Iran.

A Wrench in the Plans

Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren explained , the goal was to shatter the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.

How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained. But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.

Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.

And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress at which Republicans and Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)

Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby" brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.

However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed in the early 1980s in taking out Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?

A Historical Perspective

And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms.

If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.

So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all the evidence-lite accusations about Russian "meddling."

The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and play endless footsy with the neocons ; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into the Libyan fiasco nor suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.

But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end.

As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

This article was first published by Consortium News

[Sep 23, 2017] Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars

Notable quotes:
"... Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. ..."
"... NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters . ..."
"... NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go. ..."
www.unz.com
KA , September 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT

"HANGZHOU, China : The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.

But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure over the issue,

That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-syria-foreign-policy.html

Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy.

The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.

Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking to know what America should do.

Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the voters will destroy his chances. Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's Trojan horse .

NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters .

If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran, may be Kennedy would have survived. But his earlier political escapades were also built on something that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more time .

NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.

Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's Russia despite being his co conspirator .

Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success . First Iraq war, if went bad from beginning, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again who knows what media can deliver. They delivered Joe Liberman .

[Sep 23, 2017] The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not.

Notable quotes:
"... The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.

It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.

Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?

The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did.

The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point. Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.

This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant of the most basic facts that are available.

[Sep 23, 2017] "The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

KA > , September 13, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Boris


Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.

Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or vital.

I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.

And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world, then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things you've written.

If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times, share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.

Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which case I meant every word. :) Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed

that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .

"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.

""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html

Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?

[Sep 23, 2017] Possible entrapment of Trump with the help of FBI

Notable quotes:
"... Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the FBI whether it warned Donald Trump's presidential campaign about alleged attempts by Russia to infiltrate the campaign.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager.

Related Searches Trump Campaign Manager Trump Russia Investigation

"If the FBI did provide a defensive briefing or similar warning to the campaign, then that would raise important questions about how the Trump campaign responded," Grassley wrote in the letter dated Sept. 20.

If the FBI did not alert the campaign, Grassley said, that would raise "serious questions about what factors contributed to its decision and why it appears to have been handled differently in a very similar circumstance involving a previous campaign."

The senator said that according to press reports, U.S. intelligence had raised similar concerns with John McCain during the Republican senator's 2008 presidential campaign.

[Sep 23, 2017] Sensational Report Is Russiagate a Hoax Ordered by Vladimir Putin

Notable quotes:
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | russia-insider.com

The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe 90

For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.

The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the issue?

The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA ! reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:

"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking about nothing else for months.

One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."

... ... ...

[Sep 22, 2017] Samantha Power sought to unmask Americans on almost daily basis, sources say

Notable quotes:
"... Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.foxnews.com

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 - and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump's inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

[Sep 21, 2017] Trump's UN Speech A Neocon Dream by Daniel McAdams

Please listen to the audio at the link...
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for more war? Have they "won" Trump?

[Sep 21, 2017] The Worst Mistake in US History by Jacob G. Hornberger

Notable quotes:
"... Bush and his people were simply lying. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a president had lied in order to garner support for a war. Lyndon Johnson's lies regarding a supposed North Vietnamese attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam come to mind. Two, Bush didn't secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, most likely because he knew that congressional hearings on the issue would expose his WMD scare for the lie it was. And three, only the UN, not the US government, was entitled to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq's WMDs. ..."
"... Moreover, the circumstantial evidence establishes that Bush was lying and that the WMD scare was entirely bogus. Many people forget that throughout the 1990s the US government was hell-bent on regime change in Iraq. That's what the brutal sanctions were all about, which contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. When US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked on Sixty Minutes whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it," she responded that such deaths were "worth it." By "it," she was referring to regime change. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation . ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

A good example of how the national-security state has adversely affected the thinking of US soldiers was reflected in an op-ed entitled "What We're Fighting For" that appeared in the February 10, 2017, issue of the New York Times. Authored by an Iraq War veteran named Phil Klay, the article demonstrates perfectly what the national-security state has done to soldiers and others and why it is so imperative for the American people to restore a constitutional republic to our land.

Klay begins his op-ed by extolling the exploits of another US Marine, First Lt. Brian Chontosh, who, displaying great bravery, succeeded in killing approximately two dozen Iraqis in a fierce firefight during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Klay writes:

When I was a new Marine, just entering the Corps, this story from the Iraq invasion defined heroism for me. It's a perfect image of war for inspiring new officer candidates, right in line with youthful notions of what war is and what kind of courage it takes ! physical courage, full stop.
Klay then proceeds to tell a story about an event he witnessed when he was deployed to Iraq in 2007. After doctors failed to save the life of a Marine who had been shot by an Iraqi sniper, those same doctors proceeded to treat and save the life of the sniper, who himself had been shot by US troops. Klay used the story to point out the virtuous manner in which US forces carried out their military mission in Iraq.

Well, except perhaps, Klay observes, for Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which Saddam Hussein's government had tortured and abused countless Iraqis and which the US military turned into its own torture and abuse center for Iraqis captured during the 2003 US invasion of the country. Klay tells the story of a defense contractor named Eric Fair, who tortured an Iraqi prisoner into divulging information about a car-bomb factory. Encouraged by that successful use of torture, Fair proceeded to employ it against many other Iraqis, none of whom had any incriminating evidence to provide.

Klay points out that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were major turning points in the Iraq War because prisoner abuse at both camps became a driving force for Iraqis to join the insurgency in Iraq. Thus, while Fair may have saved lives through his successful use of torture, he and other US personnel who tortured and abused people at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay may well have cost the lives of many more US soldiers in the long term.

Klay, however, suggests that none of that was really Fair's fault. While he might have crossed some moral lines, everything he did, Klay suggests, was in accordance with legal rules and regulations. Klay writes:

And Eric did what our nation asked of him, used techniques that were vetted and approved and passed down to intelligence operatives and contractors like himself. Lawyers at the highest levels of government had been consulted, asked to bring us to the furthest edge of what the law might allow. To do what it takes, regardless of whether such actions will secure the "attachment of all good men," or live up to that oath we swear to support and defend the Constitution.
Klay refers to the oath that US soldiers take to support and defend the Constitution. Clearly patting himself and other members of the US military on the back, he says US soldiers fight with honor to defend a "set of principles" that are reflected in the Constitution and that define America.

It would be difficult to find a better example of a life of the lie than that of Phil Klay. He provides an absolutely perfect demonstration of what a national-security state does to soldiers' minds and why the Founding Fathers were so opposed to that type of governmental structure.

The rights of invaders

Notice one big omission from Klay's self-aggrandizing article: Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Instead, it was the U.S government, operating through its troops, that was the aggressor nation in the Iraq War. Wars of aggression ! i.e., attacking, invading, and occupying other countries ! were among the crimes of which the defendants at Nuremburg were convicted.

It is absolutely fascinating that that critically important point seems to escape Klay so completely. It's as if it just doesn't exist or just doesn't count. His mindset simply begins with the fact that US troops are engaged in war and then it proceeds from there to focus on the courage and humanity of the troops, how their bravery in battle inspired him, and how they treated the enemy humanely. It never occurs to him to ask the vital question: Did US troops have any legal or moral right to be in Iraq and to kill anyone there, including Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, civilians, and civil servants working for the Iraqi government?

Many years ago, I posed a question about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq to a libertarian friend of mine who was a Catholic priest. I asked him, If a US soldier is placed in Iraq in a kill-or-be-killed situation, does he have a right to fire back at an Iraqi who is shooting at him?

My friend's answer was unequivocal: Absolutely not, he responded. Since he has no legitimate right to be in Iraq, given that he is part of the aggressor force that initiated the war, under God's laws he cannot kill anyone, not even by convincing himself that he is only acting in "self-defense."

I responded, "Are you saying that his only choice is to run away or permit himself to be killed"? He responded, "That is precisely what I am saying. Under the laws of God, he cannot kill anyone in Iraq because he has no right to be there."

Suppose a burglar enters a person's home in the dead of night. The homeowner wakes up, discovers the intruder, and begins firing at him. The burglar fires back and kills the homeowner.

The burglar appears in court and explains that he never had any intention of killing the homeowner and that he was simply firing back in self-defense. He might even explain to the judge how bravely he reacted under fire and detail the clever manner in which he outmaneuvered and shot the homeowner.

The judge, however, would reject any claim of self-defense on the part of the burglar. Why? Because the burglar had no right to be in the homeowner's house. Like the US soldier in Iraq, when the homeowner began firing the burglar had only two legal and moral options: run away or be killed.

That's what my Catholic priest friend was pointing out about US soldiers in Iraq. They had no right to be there. They invaded a poor, Third World country whose government had never attacked the United States and they were killing, torturing, and abusing people whom they had no right to kill, torture, or abuse.

That's what Klay as well as most other members of the US military and, for that matter, many Americans still don't get: that the Iraqi people were the ones who wielded the right of self-defense against an illegal invasion by a foreign power and that US forces, as the aggressor power in the war, had no legal or moral right to kill any Iraqi, not even in "self-defense."

Klay waxes eloquent about the US Constitution and the oath that soldiers take to support and defend it, but it's really just another perfect demonstration of the life of the lie that he and so many other US soldiers live. The reality is that when US soldiers vow to support and defend the Constitution, as a practical matter they are vowing to loyally obey the orders and commands of the president, who is their military commander in chief.

There is no better example of this phenomenon than what happened in Iraq. The US. Constitution is clear: The president is prohibited from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. No declaration, no war. Every US soldier ordered to invade Iraq knew that or should have known that.

Everyone, including the troops, also knew that Congress had not declared war on Iraq. Yet, not a single soldier supported or defended the Constitution by refusing George Bush's order to attack and invade Iraq. Every one of them loyally obeyed his order to attack and invade, knowing full well that it would mean killing people in Iraq ! killing people who had never attacked the United States. And they all convinced themselves that by following the president's orders to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis, they were supporting and defending the Constitution.

How do US soldiers reconcile that? They convince themselves that they are supporting and defending the Constitution by obeying the orders of the president, who has been democratically elected by the citizenry. It's not their job, they tell themselves, to determine what is constitutional and what isn't. Their job, they believe, is simply to do what the president, operating through his subordinates, orders them to do. In their minds, they are supporting and defending the Constitution whenever they loyally and obediently carry out the orders of the president.

That means, then, that the standing army is nothing more than the president's private army. As a practical matter, soldiers are going to do whatever they are ordered to do. If they don't, they are quickly shot or simply replaced, which provides a good incentive for others to do as they are told. That's why soldiers invaded Iraq, which had never attacked the United States, and killed people who were defending their country against an unlawful invasion. That's also why soldiers and defense contractors tortured and abused people at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. They all believed they were carrying out the orders of their superiors, from the president on down, and that they were supporting and defending the Constitution in the process.

As people throughout history have learned, that is also why a standing army constitutes such a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the citizenry. It is the means by which a tyrant imposes and enforces his will on the citizenry. Just ask the people of Chile, where the troops of a military regime installed into power by the US national-security establishment rounded up tens of thousands of innocent people and incarcerated, tortured, raped, abused, or executed them, all without due process of law and with the support of the US government.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I read that some Catholic soldiers were deeply troubled by the prospect of killing people in a war that the US government was initiating. I was stunned to read that a US military chaplain told them that they had the right under God's laws to obey the president's order to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis. God would not hold it against them, he said, if they killed people in the process of following orders.

Really? Are God's laws really nullified by the orders of a government's military commander? If that were the case, don't you think God's commandment would have read: "Thou shalt not kill, unless your ruler orders you to do so in a war of aggression against another nation"?

To this day, there are those who claim that George W. Bush simply made an honest mistake in claiming that Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, was maintaining weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that US soldiers were justified in trusting him by loyally obeying his orders to invade and occupy Iraq to "disarm Saddam."

They ignore three important points: it was a distinct possibility that Bush and his people were simply lying. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a president had lied in order to garner support for a war. Lyndon Johnson's lies regarding a supposed North Vietnamese attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam come to mind. Two, Bush didn't secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, most likely because he knew that congressional hearings on the issue would expose his WMD scare for the lie it was. And three, only the UN, not the US government, was entitled to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq's WMDs.

Moreover, the circumstantial evidence establishes that Bush was lying and that the WMD scare was entirely bogus. Many people forget that throughout the 1990s the US government was hell-bent on regime change in Iraq. That's what the brutal sanctions were all about, which contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. When US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked on Sixty Minutes whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it," she responded that such deaths were "worth it." By "it," she was referring to regime change.

That desire for regime change in Iraq grew with each passing year in the 1990s, both among liberals and conservatives. Demands were ever growing to get rid of Saddam. Therefore, when Bush started coming up with his WMD scare after the 9/11 attacks, everyone should have been wary because it had all the earmarks of an excuse to invade Iraq after more than 10 years of sanctions had failed to achieve the job.

The best circumstantial evidence that Bush lied about the WMD scare appeared after it was determined that there were no WMDs in Iraq. At that point, if Bush had been telling the truth, he could have said, "I'm very sorry. I have made a grave mistake and my army has killed multitudes of people as a consequence of my mistake. I am hereby ordering all US troops home and I hereby announce my resignation as president."

Bush didn't do that. In fact, he expressed not one iota of remorse or regret over the loss of life for what supposedly had been the result of a mistake. He knew that he had achieved what the US national-security state had been trying to achieve for more than a decade with its brutal sanctions ! regime change in Iraq ! and he had used the bogus WMD scare to garner support for his invasion. And significantly, the troops were kept occupying Iraq for several more years, during which they killed more tens of thousands of Iraqis.

One thing is for sure: By the time Phil Klay arrived in Iraq in 2007, he knew full well that there had been no WMDs in Iraq. He also knew that Iraq had never attacked the United States. By that time, he knew full well that the US government had invaded a country under false or, at the very least, mistaken pretenses. He knew there had been no congressional declaration of war. He knew that there was no legal or moral foundation for a military occupation that was continuing to kill people in an impoverished Third World country whose worst "crime" was simply trying to rid their country of an illegal occupier.

Yet, reinforced by people who were thanking them for "their service in Iraq," Klay, like other US troops, convinced himself that their "service" in Iraq was a grand and glorious sacrifice for his nation, that they were defending Americans' rights and freedoms, and that they were keeping us safe. It was a classic life of the lie because our nation, our rights and freedoms, and our safety were never threatened by anyone in Iraq, including the millions of Iraqis who were killed, maimed, injured, tortured, abused, or exiled, or whose homes, businesses, or infrastructure were destroyed by bombs, missiles, bullets, and tanks.

In fact, the entity that actually threatened the rights and freedoms of the American people was the US government, given the totalitarian-like powers that it assumed as part of its effort to keep us safe from the enemies its interventionist policies were producing. Coming to mind are the totalitarian-like power to assassinate Americans, secret mass surveillance, and the incarceration and torture of American citizens as suspected terrorists ! all without due process of law and without trial by jury.

This is what a national-security state does to people ! it warps, damages, or destroys their conscience, principles, and values; induces them to subscribe to false bromides; and nurtures all sorts of mental contortions to enable people to avoid confronting reality.

Many years after Brian Chontosh's exploits in Iraq, Phil Klay was surprised to learn that Chontosh was experiencing some ambivalence about what he had done. "It's ugly, it's violent, it's disgusting. I wish it wasn't part of what we had to do," Chontosh later wrote.

Perhaps that's because conscience was beginning to stir within him. That's a good sign. Maybe it will begin to stir in Phil Klay too. And other members of the military as well.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

[Sep 20, 2017] Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump's Actions as President

Should not NYT be investigated as for the source of information of this leak?

One of the requests is about a meeting Mr. Trump had in May with Russian officials in the Oval Office the day after James B. Comey, the F.B. I director, was fired. That day, Mr. Trump met with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak, along with other Russian officials. The New York Times reported that in the meeting Mr. Trump said that firing Mr. Comey relieved "great pressure" on him.

[Sep 20, 2017] Transnational Writers and the Politics of the English Language by Nyla Ali Khan

Notable quotes:
"... Despite the creation of a new global order, has not transnationalism led to the politicization of identity in the form of fundamentalism, xenophobia, and a fanatical espousal of tradition, as many critics observe? It is increasingly doubtful that transnational practices are generally counter-hegemonic. ..."
"... The dissemination of transnational practices entails the transterritorialization of various socioeconomic, political, and cultural practices and identities that frequently bolster the formation and reconstitution of the nation-state. ..."
"... As Arjun Appadurai observes in his book Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization ..."
"... Yet transnational politics often lead to cultural and religious fanaticism by emphasizing a conception of identity between the "authentic" and the "demonic." ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Despite the creation of a new global order, has not transnationalism led to the politicization of identity in the form of fundamentalism, xenophobia, and a fanatical espousal of tradition, as many critics observe? It is increasingly doubtful that transnational practices are generally counter-hegemonic.

The dissemination of transnational practices entails the transterritorialization of various socioeconomic, political, and cultural practices and identities that frequently bolster the formation and reconstitution of the nation-state.

As Arjun Appadurai observes in his book Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization , diasporic communities such as the ones formed through the phenomena of transnationalism in the West Indies, Malaya, Fiji, Mauritius, Eastern and Western Africa, the U. K., and the U. S., "safe from the depredations of their home states . . . become doubly loyal to their nations of origin" (49).

Transnationalism implies a process in which formations that have traditionally been perceived as restricted to well-defined political and geographical formations have transgressed national borders, producing new social formations. Yet transnational politics often lead to cultural and religious fanaticism by emphasizing a conception of identity between the "authentic" and the "demonic." It is important to offer a critical dialogue between the works of transnational writers and the contemporary history they encounter, using history to interrogate fiction and using fiction to think through historical issues.

[Sep 20, 2017] The hubris, ignorance and stupidity in face of the failure of "regime change" operation in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years. ..."
"... The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination. ..."
"... And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens, even innocent children, shock the conscience of every decent person. No society could be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

When I heard these words I felt embarrassed for Trump. First, it is absolutely pathetic that Trump has to claim as his success the victories with the Syrians, the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah have achieved against the Wahabi-crazies of Daesh/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc, especially since the latter are a pure creation of the US CIA!

The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years.

The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination.

And now that a tiny Russian contingent has achieved infinitely better results that all the power of the mighty CENTCOM backed by the Israeli and Saudi allies of the US in the region, The Donald comes out and declares victory?!

Pathetic is not strong enough a word to describe this mind-bogglingly counter-factual statement.

And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe

[Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. ..."
"... The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies. ..."
"... a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad ..."
"... It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price. ..."
"... Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law. ..."
"... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation. ..."
"... This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands: ..."
"... Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran . ..."
"... Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president." ..."
"... Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.) ..."
"... It is only way to sustain the empire. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won. ..."
"... The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune. ..."
"... I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment . ..."
"... Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly. ..."
"... Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things. ..."
"... It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read? ..."
"... Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate? ..."
"... Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa). ..."
"... As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one). The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies.

It is schooling Trump on globalism and its "indispensable" role in it. Trump was insufficiently supportive of their desires and thus had to undergo reeducation:

When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts -- and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate

Trump was hauled into a Pentagon basement 'tank' and indoctrinated by the glittering four-star generals he admired since he was a kid:

The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad

Trump was sold the establishment policies he originally despised. No alternative view was presented to him.

It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price.

Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

Stephen Kinzer describes this as America's slow-motion military coup:
Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three military men [...]
...
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn't.
...
[It] leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military "needs" always rated more important than domestic ones.
...
It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation.

The country has fallen to that temptation even on social-economic issues:

In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the commander in chief did.
...
On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation.

The junta is bigger than its three well known leaders:

Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
...
the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.

This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands:

[Chief of staff John] Kelly initiated a new policymaking process in which just he and one other aide [...] will review all documents that cross the Resolute desk.
...
The new system [..] is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

To control Trump the junta filters his information input and eliminates any potentially alternative view:

Staff who oppose [policy xyz] no longer have unfettered access to Trump, and nor do allies on the outside [.. .] Kelly now has real control over the most important input: the flow of human and paper advice into the Oval Office. For a man as obsessed about his self image as Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world of difference.

The Trump insurgency against the establishment was marked by a mostly informal information and decision process. That has been destroyed and replaced:

Worried that Trump would end existing US spending/policies (largely, still geared to cold war priorities), the senior military staff running the Trump administration launched a counter-insurgency against the insurgency.
...
General Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff, has put Trump on a establishment-only media diet.
...
In short, by controlling Trump's information flow with social media/networks, the generals smashed the insurgency's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Deprived of this connection, Trump is now weathervaning to cater to the needs of the establishment ...

The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing to him certain alternatives. The one that is most preferable to them will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.

Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran.

Other countries noticed how the game has changed. The real decisions are made by the generals, Trump is ignored as a mere figurehead:

Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president."

Climate change, its local catastrophes and the infrastructure problems it creates within the U.S. will further extend the military role in shaping domestic U.S. policy.

Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.)

It is only way to sustain the empire.

It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.

Posted by b on September 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

Stephen | Sep18, 2017 11:32:00 AM | 1

Only good news: The mask has been torn off US elections. They simply don't matter. Waste of time and money. US has become Saddam's Iraq, Sisi's Egypt, Mugabe's Zimbabwe etc....expect to see Trump win 90% of vote in 2020....hahaha...
Hogwash | Sep18, 2017 11:32:04 AM | 2
Hogwash - The SAA just crossed the Euphrates. If the neocons were really in control, WW3 would start before dawn tomorrow. Otherwise, Assad will get his biggest oil field back from ISIS.

The Russians are hinting that the SDF isn't really fighting ISIS but just pretending to while ISIS soldiers switch uniforms. If that's true, it means the neocons may still be in charge, but what are they going to do about the Syrian Army blocking them now?

Ken Nari | Sep18, 2017 11:46:59 AM | 3
Interesting, and certainly a possible explanation of what's going on. Still, if the military is running the show, why the growth of private mercenary businesses? (A new meaning for "corporate warriors."). My own feeling, based on nothing except decades of experience working with the military, is that the generals don't mind a few little wars, but they well know the risks of a big one.

For that reason, the military leadership seems to be trying to cool things down -- that the U.S. didn't go to war with Iran, Russia, China or North Korea (yet) may be due to the influence of the top brass.

b: It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him.

hmmm...I'm not sure there's any pressure at all on Trump. Since Kennedy was removed the president has little real power and is mostly to provide the trappings of democracy and keep the proles entertained. Over 100 years ago T. Roosevelt noticed the lack of presidential freedom to act -- the bully pulpit and all that.

financial matters | Sep18, 2017 11:47:33 AM | 4
One of the main reasons I was pleased to see Trump get elected was that he wanted to get us out of Syria. Somewhat amazingly I'd say, that has pretty much happened.

Russia, Iran and China have shown themselves to be responsible players and have the strength to back that up.

So, I think in reality the US military will be forced by facts on the ground, as well as a weakening of their propaganda, to go along with Trump's original more accommodating posture.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5
It's probably inevitable that the military would rule in the twilight of US world dominance.

Back in the true USA#1 days it was different. A couple of President Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."

The main problem with generals is that most (not all) of them got to where they are by sucking up to higher authority, or "go along to get along." Then couple that with all the perks they get including fine housing, enlisted servants and a fat $250K pension for full generals, and they look at themselves in the mirror with all their fancy ribbons and medals and naturally adopt Harry Truman's "gods in uniform" opinion of themselves, forgetting that they have become successful in an isolated military milieu that favors appearance and disregards lack of accomplishment. And the current crop of generals certainly lacks accomplishment.

Lemur | Sep18, 2017 12:19:50 PM | 6
"Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase."

If that were true, why is the historic American nation being replaced by mystery meats from the global south? The Washington machine certainly produces oodles of propaganda, but it is virulently opposed to ethnocentrism at home and abroad, because that might lead to groups with the solidarity to stand up to a degenerate empire.

The indoctrination taking place here is militaristic globalism. And everyone is invited.

ben | Sep18, 2017 12:27:31 PM | 7
b said:"Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy."

Only by those who don't fully understand the TRUE American system, and those who dream of a system that actually provides " truth, liberty and justice for all".

The better liar won the "election".

The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day

Posted by: OJS | Sep18, 2017 12:44:21 PM | 8

The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day
ben | Sep18, 2017 12:48:52 PM | 9
P.S...The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune.

"It's just business" Trump has NEVER intended to be anything but what the elites wanted him to be....A wealthy puppet..

Michael McNulty | Sep18, 2017 12:49:32 PM | 10
I think the US is weak militarily for two deep and fundamental reasons, both of which have US politicians to blame.

First, the US has not had able generals and admirals since WWII because politicians today[especially since 9/11] cannot take criticism. Therefore men like MacArthur and Kimmel, who would tell them a war can't be won like that or this strategy is a bad idea, no longer get the promotions. Yes-men get promoted over more able men.

Second, this promotion of yes-men allows politicians to take over the planning of a war. Whereas MacArthur would have shut the door on the neo-cons and told them he'll let him know when his plan is ready, today politicians use political strategy to try and defeat the war strategy of an opponent. For example, Rumsfeld should have been told that if he wanted to steal Iraq he'd need half a million men - but the generals tried to do the impossible and steal Iraq with a third that number because more was politically sensitive.

If politicians are going to have a war, leave it to able generals to plan it. Or lose.

karlof1 | Sep18, 2017 12:50:31 PM | 11
There's no saving the Unipolar attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance -- not even nuclear war -- and I think the generals and their minders actually know this, although they seem to be keeping up appearances. Escobar's latest from last Friday details why this is so, http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-turns-art-deal-upside/

Even the Brazilian regime change project is becoming a loser as the massive corruption scandal is about to devour the neocon favorite Temer, while Lula is rising like the Phoenix. The latest leak scandal over the meeting between Rohrabacher and Kelly regarding Russiagate and the status of Julian Assange reveals more than the leak itself, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47818.htm

And finally, we have another great op/ed by Finian Cunningham who's on a roll of late at the Outlaw US Empire's expense, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201709161057451619-us-alien-peace/

likklemore | Sep18, 2017 12:54:41 PM | 12

Always follow the money. There is only so far a $1 will go. Shrinkflation. The USD, as reserve currency, allowed the US to fund wars, everyday essentials and live high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world. This exceptional privilege is coming to an end.

When the US declared war; [excluded Iran from use of SWIFT/ the USD] that was the shot heard far and wide. Putin and Xi noted, we could be next and put in place CHIPS.

Lately, Russia and then China has been threatened with sanctions; latest folly of Mnuchin, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The petro-Yuan Exchange for gold was announced and less than 005% of Americans realize the impact of bypassing the USD.

USA has met its comeuppance. Russia and China need not fire a shot. Prosperity of the exceptional ones is an illusion built on hundreds of trillions of debt. We are kept diverted from de-dollarization by the focus on unschooled Trump. Eight+ months after the selection, it's "Russiagate" – Putin did it; are angels male or female? What happened?

sleepy | Sep18, 2017 1:35:10 PM | 13
Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran.

As a candidate way before any junta was installed, Trump always vowed to rip up the Iran nuclear deal. Now why on earth would North Korea trust that any nuclear agreement it made with the US would not similarly be ripped up and shredded a couple years down the road?

Oilman2 | Sep18, 2017 1:35:11 PM | 14
If the handling of "local catastrophes" such as Harvey and Irma are any indication of the power of this junta, then I am not very much worried. The FEMA folks, Red Cross and many others showed their ineffectiveness in spades here in Houston. What's even more revealing is just how quickly they dashed out of here to remain in the news when Irma hit Florida.

I met two ATF guys driving down here after Harvey - and they had no idea why they were coming here. Couldn't articulate a thing to me except to say, repeatedly, "We are ATF and coming to assist." They had ZERO specifics on what they were going to do to help anyone. But they were very much enjoying wearing their ATF t-shirts and sporting their pistols on hip. But it's Texas, and that just made me smile and shake my head. Made me realize that whatever happens here in America, DC and the central government are so incredibly out of touch and living "in the bubble" that they are of very limited use for locals (those outside the East Coast) in any way.

The Feds plan for national, not local catastrophes - and their primary issue is COG, period. They are much more concerned about maintaining government and their own little fiefdoms than in assisting people far away from the DC/NYC corridor.

Further, the math just doesn't work for the junta doing much more than controlling foreign policy (who we next attack) - to try that same thing across America would result in rapid expulsion and failure, as we outnumber them most significantly.

When the pain they cause becomes enough, then things will change. Unfortunately, it seems that change via the national elections has now been abrogated. Something else is likely to ensue, eventually.

Permafrost | Sep18, 2017 1:36:52 PM | 15
The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.

The problem here ie that the cost for the system to win keeps rising, and the law of diminishing returns remains valid. So for how long? not long.

NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 2:34:52 PM | 16
I just don't understand how people can fall for the line that "nationalism" somehow equates to an undesirable movement akin to the rise of nazism. The media has been blitzing this as of late and rallying cries around the antifa demonstrations have been taking this buzzword and running with it, equating proponents of it to racist KKK members in some silly way or another. Even here, b, you seem to be eating right out of the hands of these pagemasters who dictate what words mean.

I'm sorry, but there is a glaring doublestandard when you praise the policy of say Venezuela which "nationalized" their oil industry and condemn all of us Americans who are begging to disassociate from global mechanisms which are crippling fair-spending of tax dollars here in the state. It is fair to assume that military junta historically use the energy of nationalism's lexicon to promote their agenda, but in this case, as you point out, the junta and the status quo of globalism's iron hand seem to fit together nicely. I read that as nationalism never even taking flight here.

I get your trepidation with this terminology considering the history of your country, but America IS different and we deserve an attempt to put America first...shocking, I know.

Kalen | Sep18, 2017 2:49:10 PM | 17
B fell pray of partisan propaganda, Trump - the coup d'etat enabler DNC MANTRA.. So please inform me when generals were not in executive charge of the US government. On behave of oligarchic ruling elite ? Where were those civilian rulers during documented 250 conflicts or war US was engaged during 228 years of existence

The first president was a general and since then US generals executed basic US imperial economic model of aggression and exploitation, military land grab from Indians and Mexicans to suppression of workers strikes by shelling their families at home in US as well in its conquered colonies in CA and Caribbean we have proof thanks to Gen. Butler.

It was a Gen. Eisenhower who warned us the junta refused to disarm after WWII and constitutes coear and present danger to even a facade of republican order.

Anybody who believe that imperial US is run by civilians is SIMPLY gullible since no emporia were ever run by civilians by definition. Roman Empire was run over last 200 year explicitly by generals COMMANDING armies of foreign mercenaries like US today in NATO and ASEAN .

What has changed is that veil of deceit has failed and with Trump those warmongering cockroaches came out of WH woodwork to see a light and tookbopenly control f what they already controlled clandestinely.

Peter AU 1 | Sep18, 2017 2:49:47 PM | 18
16
If you think US is different to nazi it might be worth reading saker's piece on it. If you think US nationalism is any different to Nazi Germany in aggression then think again. The US population, and much of the so called west, is swamped in propaganda while the US attacks country after country.
NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 3:06:17 PM | 19
@18 Peter

But once again, many here think that Europe is already one big vassal state of the global/US empire. So if anything, we are all already under the jack boot of empire. To dislodge one piece (US), indeed, the central piece, seems to me that the world would be in recovery mode from "the global reich." Please correct if I'm wrong, but your logic does not compute. Furthermore, I don't think a reeling US economy and population, freshly liberated, is going to be convinced any time soon to wage wars abroad for precious metals and the like. "Helping" the world would probably take a back seat.

Hoarsewhisperer | Sep18, 2017 3:39:20 PM | 20
...
"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
...
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5

And, despite the fact that Trump rubbed shoulders with dozens of these wannabe Generals at Military Academy, and was exposed to the same claptrap, it seems safe to assume that he realised that a Life spent in the US Military would be pointless, unimaginative and frustrating.

WithAllWindsAhead | Sep18, 2017 3:40:39 PM | 21
Re. Ben #7:

To be fair he did put an end to Timber Sycamore. The deep state wouldn't have pushed so hard on the Russian angle if there weren't a real upheaval. IMO, it went beyond simply covering for the DNC leaks. The whole establishment dog piled the Russian angle. It was for a time the principal means of disrupting Trump's agenda. I think Trump's token strike on the Syrian airbase is evidence of all of this. It was the absolute minimum he could have done in the face of a tidal wave of internal war pressures. And, they certainly could have gotten away with way more of the "trump is a Nazi angle," but they appear to have stopped after they got Bannon out.

Prescribing Trump, a monster though he is, as being at least the lesser war candidate holds IMO. What his presidency has illuminated above all else is the wild degree to which US is first and foremost of war. It is perhaps the most ubiquitous force that charges the US system.

That all said, we are going to find out real soon what the military is after. The SDF and SAA meeting in Deir Ezor is going to tell us a lot. This is perhaps their last chance at balkanization of Syria. A glimmer of hope still resides however in the supposed Pentagon revolt that took place over Obama's red line in the sand, as reported by Sy Hersh and others. As evil as the US military is, they dont seem to actually want war with Russia, unlike the intelligence complex. I, personally, am still hopeful at least about Syria.

somebody | Sep18, 2017 4:17:08 PM | 24
16 - let Putin explain it to you
The Russian leader expressed confidence that "one of the key components of our self-consciousness, one of the values and ideas is patriotism." Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.
somebody | Sep18, 2017 4:38:26 PM | 25
add to 24

Or more historical: "Patriotism" was coined in Europe by the French revolution, forming a common state of citizens open to all who can identify with common values and culture. But American Patriots came before that and that is probably where the French got the word.

As a group, Patriots represented a wide array of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds.

"Nationalism" was a 19th century reaction to the export of the French revolution when European kingdoms tried a legitimization of borders based on language and genetics. It was all war from there to the Second World War and Auschwitz. If you want to sink the US in an internal Civil War try nationalism.

Jackrabbit | Sep18, 2017 4:42:09 PM | 26
I think there is some hyperventilating here. Was Trump 'turned'? Was his administration 'taken over' or was he always a figurehead? I decided several months ago that it was the latter:
> How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux Populist Leaders

> Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us from Fake Election

During his campaign Trump was vocally pro-military.

PS Hillary has always been pro-military also.

broders | Sep18, 2017 5:09:57 PM | 27
well, the system cannot "win"... dialectics... every steps it takes to control and secure "things", brings it closer to its end, and this, inevitably. no one wins, ever. no one looses even. the only way to fight and defeat evil is a decisive progress in goodness, to ignore it... the reality on the ground allows us to think that way, to set up concerts in the ruins, for good. thank you russia (as for the us military, they need 5 or 6 years to just cath up with last year's stand... but they still can agitate their little arms, so they do).
Christian Chuba | Sep18, 2017 5:40:56 PM | 28
Location, location, location
I am in shock and awe of our Pentagon (and CIA)'s ability to market themselves. I am convinced that this is their core area of competency as I read the slick consultant generated talking points on how $600B equals a dilapidated military instead of one that needs a purge. If we really have a readiness problem, heads should roll before they get more money but instead we cry for the incompetents.

The vaunted sea lanes and free trade

I used for fall for this nonsensical argument, that we needed 20 carrier groups to patrol the oceans to ensure free trade. Really? All we need is an international system of Coast Guards augmented by a few missile boats if there are some countries that don't have the budget for a coast guard to prevent piracy. We don't need aircraft carriers for that. Why do we assume that we need 24x7 aircraft coverage in the Pacific, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean? I have a vague memory of the 80's where it was a big deal that we 'sent our fleet' to the Mediterranean for some occasions. It wasn't assumed that we had a task force parked there 100% of the time.

I don't see why we can't get by with 6 or at most 8 carrier groups with the understanding that we would never deploy more than 2 for special occasions so that they can rotate assignments.

I don't want to think of one | Sep18, 2017 5:41:53 PM | 29
Disappointed in your post, b. Expected better.

"The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one)"

The USA was on the winning side for the Boxer Rebellion, the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection, and a lot of other counter-insurgency operations. Basic military history. Just wanted to mention that to set the correct tone, because your blog post started out factually incorrect and carried on that way until the end.

Basic reasoning test, b:

i) Do you think Trump has been defeated by 'the US military', or ii) do you think a small number of senior military men have thwarted Trump? Because the two are very different things.

I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment .

Do you think Trump is a weak-minded cretin? Because that's what your theory requires. That the guy can't remember his oft-repeated positions and statements after some briefings and a few months. I say that nobody loses their wits that fast, and nobody does a 180 on so many core policies without knowing that they're doing it.

Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly.

Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things.

"It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC."
Yeah, nah. Pretty sure that's still the Wall St lobby, the Israel lobby, the CFR and the usual mob. Generals are just hired thugs, as Smedley Butler put it. Or as Kissinger put it, the US military is made up of "Military men" who "are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns."

What you've done, b, is to pull together some half-formed thoughts and mashed them all together. It sounds badass as a righteously indignant blog post, and I bet the Huffpost crowd would love it – but it fails as logic.

NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 5:58:47 PM | 30
@25 somebody

Nice play of semantics. But it still sounds like "patriotism" is a nice euphemism for nationalism. Why else would Putin be the scourge of the west? Reminds me too of how Putin played nice all through the Syrian War calling the US their "partner." Another euphemism. Seems like Putin likes to sound like the better man (and he is) but part of his strategy has always been to underplay his hand in the mix.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 6:09:44 PM | 31
@CC #28
re: aircraft carriers

New carriers cost about $12B each, plus the cost of the 5,000 crew-members and aircraft, plus the cost of the accompanying fleet that goes with every carrier. Carriers have been mainly used in the last decade in the Gulf area to launch aircraft to bomb third world countries. Most carriers are in port most of the time because they require a lot of maintenance, which adds a lot more to expense. They are also used to sail near enemy countries, Washington believing that they are useful to scare third world countries into thinking that they may be bombed, which might make some sense except the results are questionable. As you indicate, the main threat to world shipping is piracy for which carrier fleets are useless. The good thing about having a carrier in the Persian Gulf much of the time is that it ensures that Iran would not be attacked; it would be a sitting duck.

The current location of the eleven US carriers is below taken from here . There is a new addition to the fleet, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.
1 - Persian Gulf
1 - hurricane duty
1 - off Carolina coast
1- off Japan coast
7 - port

les7 | Sep18, 2017 6:22:59 PM | 32
There are generals and then there are generals... Just which ones are taking over? The Neo-con backed guys? The Pro-pentagon guys? The CIA/JSOC guys? The Black Ops Guys? or the Black on Black Ops guys? The reason I ask is that at one time they were all fighting each other in N.Syria.

It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read?

If so... I think it is overall a good thing (the beso of an bunch of bad) because the Pentagon have shown themselves to be a lot more sane when it comes to creating conflict zones. They tend to be less covert, a lot more overt and a lot less likely to forment war for the sake of some corporation or political subset of the ruling elite.

thoughts anyone?

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 6:24:14 PM | 33
#29
You're wrong. It's obvious who's in charge in Washington currently. There is no doubt that, politically speaking, the insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. Generals Mattis, McMaster and Kelly are paramount in the new administration. Mattis has been given decision power on war, which Trump had promised to curtail.

McMaster, with no diplomatic experience, is national security and Kelly manages Trump's office.

The whole administration has taken a new tack with these generals and their military cohorts -- they do no stand alone, they are part of an institution -- managing US foreign policy. Concomitant to this are other factors including the cut in the State Department budget, the appointment of neophyte and hawkish Haley at the UN and Trump's romance with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Palloy | Sep18, 2017 6:45:10 PM | 34
Politics is always complex and messy and no one ever "rules" in the way being assumed. The military have always had a big say - how else did they get such a huge budget for years on end? CIA have always played a big part, likewise FBI, NSA, Wall St., CFR, Fed, IMF and so on. Three, maybe six , Generals now have a bigger influence. Bannon has gone, so less influence for the deplorables. That is only a subtle change in the big scheme of things.

And now we are going to have a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on 4th of July, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-18/day-fire-and-fury-trump-considers-military-parade-down-pennsylvania-avenue (sorry -don't know what you want for links), just like that other fat person with a funny hair-cut, inexperienced, erratic and unpredictable, nuclear-armed and dangerous.

This is the just the death throes of an empire that is meeting the Limits to Growth. Expect MUCH MUCH worse to come. I think it will be SO horrible, many people will take the suicide option.

Linda O | Sep18, 2017 7:22:25 PM | 35
Obviously any 1000 or so word article is going to woefully simplified compared to the decades of historical and political research that will dissect the Trump presidency in the finest detail, I will say that this article has one glaring flaw that significantly lessens its value. Trump has rolled over for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in Washington. There really is nothing special about the military's ease with which they captured and neutered Trump.

I don't think there is a single area of his campaign platform that he has given up on or flip-flopped on. I don't think there is any other president who has been a comparable ACROSS THE BOARD FAILURE like Trump.

No one has ever been surprised that the wacky, inane, or divorced from reality promises presidents made to get themselves elected never were followed through on. But every single president before Trump at the very least had a core set of priorities they immediately set in motion.

The failure of the Trump presidency should for once and for all put to rest the silly and juvinille dream of the lone super man heading off to Washington to FINALLY TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS and show those sleazy career politicians who things are done in the real world.

Trump walked into the White House with absolutely no governing apparatus ready to go on day one like every other presidential candidate has in the past.

Presidential candidates spend decades building up a vast network of people ready to hit the ground running and know how Washington works from the moment the election is over.

One has to wonder if Trump really ever expected to win. Or just has a complete lack of interest in the massive network o loyal and knowledgeable people needed to setup a brand new presidential administration.

And there is no check on how badly the Trump administration can fail. His base appears to be currled up in fetal position on Breitbart collectively chanting 'this is not happening, this is not happening.'

I don't think I've ever felt more joy than seeing that ABSOLUTE FILTH Hillary Clinton get here murderous and vile ass get handed to her by a TV personality.

Never in my dreams did I think Trump wouldn't accomplish ANYTHING.

So Trump fans, keep posting those MEMES and WINNING --

VietnamVet | Sep18, 2017 7:30:08 PM | 36
b's analysis rings true. The establishment has reined in Donald Trump. On their return from Florida, it appeared that Melania Trump is well aware of the history of the House of Bourbon. One does not become a Four-star General in the establishment today without an instinctive understanding of the needs of the organ grinder. The end stage of an Empire is everybody for themselves. The open source insurrection is over until it isn't anymore. Periodic combat takeoffs from Joint Base Andrews are not reassuring. The desire to stay alive is the only brake on the rush to a nuclear war with North Korea or the heating up of the Cold War with Russia.
Madmen | Sep18, 2017 7:58:27 PM | 38
A great follow-up article to an UNZ article early this year which stated:

During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything-on-the-2016-us-election/

PavewayIV | Sep18, 2017 8:15:14 PM | 39
I respectfully disagree with everyone. There is nobody in charge in Washington DC and hasn't been for a long time.

There are psychopathic oligarchs, warlords, fiefdoms and secret cabals milking their power and authority for a variety of self-serving interests with varying degrees of success and failure. The entire government has mutated to an arena where the above powers spar for more control and more money day after day. There is no real oversight. It's too complex and secretive for any one person or group to be 'in charge'.

The announcer is not 'in charge'. He's just the announcer, nothing more. And the little people are just spectators, nothing more.

MadMax2 | Sep18, 2017 8:23:13 PM | 40
@34 Palloy

Couldn't agree more re: Limits to Growth. And no prizes for guessing which major economies have gone about insulating themselves against the pitfalls of cowboy economics... nothing was fixed, repaired, refitted or replaced after 2008...crazy that any chance of sensible, sustainable capitalism in the west might be lost to the cannibals need of rampant consumerism. I'll side with the nations that keep an interest in public banking systems rather than the one's that encourage it citizens ro eat the face off one another.

It's not all dark though, The Tale of The Don is really a romantic one... Of the wild west never ending... Of the railroad tycoons that never really died.

Jackrabbit gets more right with every passing day... there is no such thing as an outsider the moment you win.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 8:27:27 PM | 41
@ 38
Yes, the power elite's military faction. Not: "I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks. . ."

Outsiders don't appreciate the power of the strengthening military-industrial complex that Eisenhower cautioned about in his farewell address.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 8:31:06 PM | 42
from "The Hill": Overnight Defense: Senate passes $700B defense bill | 3,000 US troops heading to Afghanistan | Two more Navy officials fired over ship collisions
V. Arnold | Sep18, 2017 8:34:04 PM | 43
A Chinese fire drill best describes what passes for the U.S.'s present level of policy. Most of the world watches; aghast at the spectacle, while cowering with fear at the hubris...
Jackrabbit | Sep18, 2017 8:38:28 PM | 44
@spudski

But other commenters have also been critical, though less colorful.

@Madmen

Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate?

Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa).

As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.

V. Arnold | Sep18, 2017 9:00:19 PM | 45
Jackrabbit @ Sep18, 2017 8:38:28 PM | 44

As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.

Nice, I like it...

spudski | Sep18, 2017 9:01:53 PM | 46
@Jackrabbit

Agreed. I had no problem with the substance, in fact I like the fact that there are diverse opinions here and I learn a lot from the discussions. I just didn't need the gratuitous insults to b given how much effort he puts in here.

[Sep 18, 2017] End Democracy Promotion Balderdash by James Bovard

Notable quotes:
"... The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports. ..."
"... this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of democracy. ..."
"... In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama portrayed the US bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges. ..."
"... Democracy promotion gives US policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy , created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama , Costa Rica , Ukraine , Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia , Poland , Haiti and many other nations. The State Department has a long list of similar pratfalls, including pouring vast amounts of money in vain efforts to beget democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan . ..."
"... Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying. ..."
"... Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary work during his reign. ..."
Aug 13, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is revising the State Department mission statement to focus on promoting "the security, prosperity and interests of the American people globally." Washington pundits are aghast that "democracy promotion" is no longer trumpeted as a top US foreign policy goal. Elliott Abrams, George W. Bush's "democracy czar," complained, "We used to want a just and democratic world, and now apparently we don't the message being sent will be a great comfort to every dictator in the world."

But this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of democracy.

The US has periodically pledged to spread democracy ever since President Woodrow Wilson announced in 1913: "I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men!" Democracy is so important that the US government refuses to stand idly by when foreign voters go astray. Since 1946, the US has intervened -- usually covertly -- in more than 80 foreign elections to assist its preferred candidate or party.

In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror.

President Barack Obama was supposed to redeem the honor of US foreign policy. In 2011, Obama portrayed the US bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges.

But the Obama team, like prior administrations, did not permit its democratic pretensions to impede business as usual. After Egyptian protestors toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, Obama pledged to assist that nation "pursue a credible transition to a democracy ." But the US government disapproved of that nation's first elected leader, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After the Egyptian military deposed Morsi in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry bizarrely praised Egypt's generals for " restoring democracy ." Similarly, many Ethiopians were horrified when Obama visited their country in 2015 and praised its regime as " democratically elected " -- despite a sham election and its brutal suppression of journalists, bloggers and other critics.

Democracy promotion gives US policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy , created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama , Costa Rica , Ukraine , Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia , Poland , Haiti and many other nations. The State Department has a long list of similar pratfalls, including pouring vast amounts of money in vain efforts to beget democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Democracy at its best is a wonderful form of government but many so-called democracies nowadays are simply elective despotisms. Elections abroad are often herd counts to determine who gets to fleece the herd. Many democracies have become kleptocracies where governing is indistinguishable from looting.

In some nations, election victories legitimize destroying voters en masse. This is exemplified by the Philippines, where the government has killed 7,000 suspected drug users and dealers , including several mayors . After President Rodrigo Duterte publicly declared that he would be " happy to slaughter " three million drug users, Trump phoned him and, according to a leaked transcript, said, "I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you're doing] on the drug problem." Similarly, Trump congratulated Turkish president Recep Erdogan after he won a referendum that awarded him quasi-dictatorial powers.

It is time to admit that America lacks a Midas touch for spreading democracy. Freedom House reported that, even prior to Trump's election, more than 100 nations have seen declines in democracy since 2005.

Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying.

Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary work during his reign.

James Bovard, author of Public Policy Hooligan , is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors . Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard

Reprinted with author's permission from USA TODAY .

[Sep 18, 2017] Americas Deadliest Export -- Democracy - The Truth about US Foreign Policy and Everything Else by Gary Corseri

Notable quotes:
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
Amazon.com

William Blum's "Cri de Coeur", February 9, 2013

William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York, 2013.)

(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):

In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an audiotape, declaring:

"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State."

Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, in which he had mused:

"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling Age.

America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"

Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!" concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic and emetic!

Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ... is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of higher understanding.

Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:

  1. Why they hate us;
  2. America means well;
  3. We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the world;
  4. We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture and war--to achieve the above idea.

Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."

In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?" He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy which puts people before profits."

America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought, Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:

"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers, "Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.

"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."

Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'

Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"

Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics, junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy and moral rectitude.

Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch, Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: [email protected].

[Sep 18, 2017] Down With Western Democracy !

Notable quotes:
"... German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'. ..."
"... And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. ..."
"... This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. ..."
Aug 02, 2014 | CounterPunch

A specter is haunting Europe and Western world - it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving our entire planet.

As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism. Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters – all of them were and have always been defined by fascist bigots as terrorists.

By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend one's motherland was and is a sign of extremism.

German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'.

And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom.

An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some, and plundering others, or both.

The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God. It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy and rebuild as it wishes.

This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box.

This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness.

This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language.

***

In our latest book, "On Western Terrorism – from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", Noam Chomsky commented on the 'democratic' process in the Western world:

"The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry and they're certainly not trying to create informed voters who'll make rational choices. They are trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine markets are used to undermine democracy. It's one of the major industries in the country and its basic workings are invisible."

But what is it that really signifies this 'sacred' word, this almost religious term, and this pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives (not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it.

Democracy!

All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are.

"In the name of freedom and democracy!" Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular explosions.

"Defending democracy!" Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States of America.

"Civilizing the world and spreading democracy!" That has always been a European slogan, their 'stuff to do', and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East ( "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes", to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill).

So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered face – the lady whose name is Democracy?

***

It is all very simple, actually. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people". Then and now, it was supposed to be in direct contrast to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia), that means "rule of an elite".

'Rule of the people' Let us just visit a few examples of the 'rule of the people'.

People spoke, they ruled, they voted 'democratically' in Chile, bringing in the mild and socialist government of 'Popular Unity' of Salvador Allende.

Sure, the Chilean education system was so brilliant, its political and social system so wonderful, that it inspired not only many countries in Latin America, but also those in far away Mediterranean Europe.

That could not be tolerated, because, as we all know, it is only white Europe and North America that can be allowed to supply the world with the blueprint for any society, anywhere on this planet. It was decided that "Chile has to scream", that its economy had to be ruined and the "Popular Unity" government kicked out of power.

Henry Kissinger, belonging, obviously, to a much higher race and country of a much higher grade, made a straightforward and in a way very 'honest' statement, clearly defining the North American stand towards global democracy: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."

And so Chile was ravaged. Thousands of people were murdered and 'our son-of-a-bitch' was brought to power. General Pinochet was not elected: he bombed the Presidential palace in Santiago, he savagely tortured the men and women who were elected by the Chilean people, and he "disappeared" thousands.

But that was fine, because democracy, as it is seen from Washington, London or Paris, is nothing more and nothing less than what the white man needs in order to control this planet, unopposed and preferably never criticized.

Of course Chile was not the only place where 'democracy' was 'redefined'. And it was not the most brutal scenario either, although it was brutal enough. But it was a very symbolic 'case', because here, there could be absolutely no dispute: an extremely well educated, middle class country, voted in transparent elections, just to have its government murdered, tortured and exiled, simply because it was too democratic and too involved in improving the lives of its people.

There were countless instances of open spite coming from the North, towards the 'rule of the people' in Latin America. For centuries, there have been limitless examples. Every country 'south of the border' in the Western Hemisphere, became a victim.

After all, the self-imposed Monroe Doctrine gave North Americans 'unquestionable rights' to intervene and 'correct' any 'irresponsible' democratic moves made by the lower races inhabiting Central and South America as well as the Caribbean Islands.

There were many different scenarios of real ingenuity, in how to torture countries that embarked on building decent homes for their people, although soon there was evidence of repetitiveness and predictability.

The US has been either sponsoring extremely brutal coups (like the one in Guatemala in 1954), or simply occupying the countries in order to overthrow their democratically elected governments. Justifications for such interventions have varied: it was done in order to 'restore order', to 'restore freedom and democracy', or to prevent the emergence of 'another Cuba'.

From the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Grenada in 1983, countries were 'saved from themselves' through the introduction (by orders from mainly the Protestant North American elites with clearly pathological superiority complexes) of death squads that administered torture, rape and extrajudicial executions. People were killed because their democratic decisions were seen as 'irresponsible' and therefore unacceptable.

While there has been open racism in every aspect of how the Empire controlled its colonies, 'political correctness' was skillfully introduced, effectively reducing to a bare minimum any serious critiques of the societies that were forced into submission.

In Indonesia, between 1 and 3 million people were murdered in the years1965/66, in a US -sponsored coup, because there too, was a 'great danger' that the people would rule and decide to vote 'irresponsibly', bringing the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), at that time the third most numerous Communist Party anywhere in the world, to power.

The democratically elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961, by the joint efforts of the United States and Europe, simply because he was determined to use the vast natural resources of his country to feed his own people; and because he dared to criticize Western colonialism and imperialism openly and passionately.

East Timor lost a third of its population simply because its people, after gaining independence from Portugal, dared to vote the left-leaning FRETILIN into power. "We are not going to tolerate another Cuba next to our shores", protested the Indonesian fascist dictator Suharto, and the US and Australia strongly agreed. The torture, and extermination of East Timorese people by the Indonesian military, was considered irrelevant and not even worth reporting in the mass media.

The people of Iran could of course not be trusted with 'democracy'. Iran is one of the oldest and greatest cultures on earth, but its people wanted to use the revenues from its oil to improve their lives, not to feed foreign multi-nationals. That has always been considered a crime by Western powers – a crime punishable by death.

The people of Iran decided to rule; they voted, they said that they want to have all their oil industry nationalized. Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, was ready to implement what his people demanded. But his government was overthrown in a coup d'état, orchestrated by the British MI6 and North American CIA, and what followed was the murderous dictatorship of the deranged Western puppet – Reza Pahlavi. As in Latin America and Indonesia, instead of schools, hospitals and housing projects, people got death squads, torture chambers and fear. Is that what they wanted? Is that what they voted for?

There were literally dozens of countries, all over the world, which had to be 'saved', by the West, from their own 'irresponsible citizens and voters'. Brazil recently 'celebrated' the 50th anniversary of the US-backed military coup d'état, which began a horrendous 20 year long military dictatorship. The US supported two coups in Iraq, in 1963 and 1968 that brought Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party to power. The list is endless. These are only some random examples.

On closer examination, the West has overthrown, or made attempts to overthrow, almost any democratically elected governments, on all continents attempting to serve their own people, by providing them with decent standards of living and social services. That is quite an achievement, and some stamina!

Could it be then that the West only respects 'Democracy' when 'people are forced to rule' against their own interests? And when they are 'defending' what they are ordered to defend by local elites that are subservient to North American and European interests? and also when they are defending the interests of foreign multi-national companies and Western governments that are dependent on those companies?

***

Can anything be done? If a country is too weak to defend itself by military means, against some mighty Western aggressor, could it approach any international democratic institutions, hoping for protection?

Unthinkable!

A good example is Nicaragua, which had been literally terrorized by the United States, for no other reason than for being socialist. Its government went to court.

The case was called: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America.

It was a 1986 case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.

The judgment was long, consisting of 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force." The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the "Contras") and seeking to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

Judgment was passed, and so were UN votes and resolutions. The UN resolution from 1986 called for the full and immediate compliance with the Judgment. Only Thailand, France and the UK abstained. The US showed total spite towards the court, and it vetoed all UN resolutions.

It continued its terror campaign against Nicaragua. In the end, the ruined and exhausted country voted in 1990. It was soon clear that it was not voting for or against Sandinista government, but whether to endure more violence from the North, or to simply accept depressing defeat. The Sandinista government lost. It lost because the voters had a North American gun pointing at their heads.

This is how 'democracy' works.

I covered the Nicaraguan elections of 1996 and I was told by voters, by a great majority of them, that they were going to vote for the right-wing candidate (Aleman), only because the US was threatening to unleash another wave of terror in case the Sandinista government came back to power, democratically.

The Sandinistas are now back. But only because most of Latin America has changed, and there is unity and determination to fight, if necessary.

***

While the Europeans are clearly benefiting from neo-colonialism and the plunder that goes on all over the world, it would be ridiculous to claim that they themselves are 'enjoying the fruits of democracy'.

In a dazzling novel "Seeing", written by Jose Saramago, a laureate for the Nobel Prize for literature, some 83% of voters in an unidentified country (most likely Saramago's native Portugal), decide to cast blank ballots, expressing clear spite towards the Western representative election system.

This state, which prided itself as a 'democratic one', responded by unleashing an orgy of terror against its own citizens. It soon became obvious that people are allowed to make democratic choices only when the result serves the interests of the regime.

Ursula K Le Guin, reviewing the novel in the pages of The Guardian, on 15 April 2006, admitted:

Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making.

She should not have been. Even in Europe itself, terror had been unleashed, on many occasions, against the people who decided to vote 'incorrectly'.

Perhaps the most brutal instance was in the post WWII period, when the Communist Parties were clearly heading for spectacular victories in France, Italy and West Germany. Such 'irresponsible behavior' had to be, of course, stopped. Both US and UK intelligence forces made a tremendous effort to 'save democracy' in Europe, employing Nazis to break, intimidate, even murder members of progressive movements and parties.

These Nazi cadres were later allowed, even encouraged, to leave Europe for South America, some carrying huge booty from the victims who vanished in concentration camps. This booty included gold teeth.

Later on, in the 1990's, I spoke to some of them, and also to their children, in Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay. They were proud of their deeds, unrepentant, and as Nazi as ever.

Many of those European Nazis later actively participated in Operation Condor, so enthusiastically supported by the Paraguayan fascist and pro-Western dictator, Alfredo Strössner. Mr Strössner was a dear friend and asylum-giver to many WWII war criminals, including people like Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death", who performed genetic experiments on children during the WWII.

So, after destroying that 'irresponsible democratic process' in Europe (the post-war Western Empire), many European Nazis that were now loyally serving their new master, were asked to continue with what they knew how to do best. Therefore they helped to assassinate some 60,000 left-wing South American men, women and their children, who were guilty of building egalitarian and just societies in their home countries. Many of these Nazis took part, directly, in Operacion Condor, under the direct supervision of the United States and Europe.

As Naomi Klein writes in her book, Shock Doctrine:

"Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operaçăo Condor) was a campaign of political repression and terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating governments."

In Chile, German Nazis rolled up their sleeves and went to work directly: by interrogating, liquidating and savagely torturing members of the democratically elected government and its supporters. They also performed countless medical experiments on people, at the so-called Colonia Dirnidad, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, whose rule was manufactured and sustained by Dr. Kissinger and his clique.

But back to Europe: in Greece, after WWII, both the UK and US got heavily involved in the civil war between the Communists and the extreme right-wing forces.

In 1967, just one month before the elections in which the Greek left-wing was expected to win democratically (the Indonesian scenario of 1965), the US and its 'Greek colonels' staged a coup, which marked the beginning of a 7 year savage dictatorship.

What happened in Yugoslavia, some 30 years later is, of course clear. A successful Communist country could not be allowed to survive, and definitely not in Europe. As bombs fell on Belgrade, many of those inquisitive and critically thinking people that had any illusions left about the Western regime and its 'democratic principles', lost them rapidly.

But by then, the majority of Europe already consisted of indoctrinated masses, some of the worst informed and most monolithic (in their thinking) on earth.

Europe and its voters It is that constantly complaining multitude, which wants more and more money, and delivers the same and extremely predictable electoral results every four, five or six years. It lives and votes mechanically. It has totally lost its ability to imagine a different world, to fight for humanist principles, and even to dream.

It is turning into an extremely scary place, a museum at best, and a cemetery of human vision at the worst.

***

As Noam Chomsky pointed out:

Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole where it belongs.

Arundhati Roy, commented in her "Is there life after democracy?"

The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?

***

After all that brutality, and spite for people all over the world, the West is now teaching the planet about democracy. It is lecturing Asians and Africans, people from Middle East and Sub-Continent, on how to make their countries more 'democratic'. It is actually hard to believe, it should be one of the most hilarious things on earth, but it is happening, and everyone is silent about it.

Those who are listening without bursting into laughter are actually well paid.

There are seminars; even foreign aid projects related to 'good governance', sponsored by the European Union, and the United States. The EU is actually much more active in this field. Like the Italian mafia, it sends covert but unmistakable messages to the world: "You do as we say, or we break your legs But if you obey, come to us and we will teach you how to be a good aide to Cosa Nostra! And we will give you some pasta and wine while you are learning."

Because there is plenty of money, so called 'funding' members of the elite, the academia, media and non-government organizations, from countries that have been plundered by the West – countries like Indonesia, Philippines, DR Congo, Honduras, or Colombia –send armies of people to get voluntarily indoctrinated, (sorry, to be 'enlightened') to learn about democracy from the greatest assassins of genuine 'people's power'; from the West.

Violating democracy is an enormous business. To hush it up is part of that business. To learn how to be idle and not to intervene against the external forces destroying democracy in your own country, while pretending to be 'engaged and active', is actually the best business, much better than building bridges or educating children (from a mercantilist point of view).

Once, at the University of Indonesia where I was invited to speak, a student asked me 'what is the way forward', to make his country more democratic? I replied, looking at several members of the professorial staff:

"Demand that your teachers stop going to Europe on fully funded trips. Demand that they stop being trained in how to brainwash you. Do not go there yourself, to study. Go there to see, to understand and to learn, but not to study Europe had robbed you of everything. They are still looting your country. What do you think you will learn there? Do you really think they will teach you how to save your nation?"

Students began laughing. The professors were fuming. I was never invited back. I am sure that the professors knew exactly what I was talking about. The students did not. They were thinking that I made a very good joke. But I was not trying to be funny.

***

As I write these words, the Thai military junta has taken over the country. The West is silent: the Thai military is an extremely close ally. Democracy at work

And as I write these words, the fascist government in Kiev is chasing, kidnapping and "disappearing" people in the east and south of Ukraine. By some insane twist of logic, the Western corporate media is managing to blame Russia. And only a few people are rolling around on the floor, laughing.

As I write these words, a big part of Africa is in flames, totally destroyed by the US, UK, France and other colonial powers.

Client states like the Philippines are now literally being paid to get antagonistic with China.

Japanese neo-fascist adventurism fully supported by the Unites States can easily trigger WWIII. So can Western greed and fascist practices in Ukraine.

Democracy! People's power!

If the West had sat on its ass, where it belongs, in Europe and in North America, after WWII, the world would have hardly any problems now. People like Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddeq, would have led their nations and continents. They would have communicated with their own people, interacted with them. They would have built their own styles of 'democracy'.

But all that came from the Bandung Conference of 1955, from the ideals of the Non-Aligned movement, was ruined and bathed in blood. The true hopes of the people of the world cut to pieces, urinated on, and then thrown into gutter.

But no more time should be wasted by just analyzing, and by crying over spilt milk. Time to move on!

The world has been tortured by Europe and the United States, for decades and centuries. It has been tortured in the name of democracy but it has all been one great lie. The world has been tortured simply because of greed, and because of racism. Just look back at history. Europe and the United States have only stopped calling people "niggers", but they do not have any more respect for them than before. And they are willing, same as before, to sacrifice millions of human lives.

Let us stop worshiping their box, and those meaningless pieces of paper that they want us to stick in there. There is no power of people in this. Look at the United States itself – where is our democracy? It is a one-party regime fully controlled by market fundamentalists. Look at our press, and propaganda

Rule of the people by the people, true democracy, can be achieved. We the people had been derailed, intellectually, so we have not been thinking how, for so many decades.

Now we, many of us, know what is wrong, but we are still not sure what is right.

Let us think and let us search, let us experiment. And also, let us reject their fascism first. Let them stick their papers wherever they want! Let them pretend that they are not slaves to some vendors and swindlers. Let them do whatever they want – there, where they belong.

Democracy is more than a box. It is more than a multitude of political parties. It is when people can truly choose, decide and build a society that they dream about. Democracy is the lack of fear of having napalm and bombs murdering our dreams. Democracy is when people speak and from those words grow their own nation. Democracy is when millions of hands join together and from that brilliant union, new trains begin to run, new schools begin to teach, and new hospitals begin to heal. All this by the people, for the people! All this created by proud and free humans as gift to all – to their nation.

Yes, let the slave masters stick their pieces of paper into a box, or somewhere else. They can call it democracy. Let us call democracy something else – rule of the people, a great exchange of ideas, of hopes and dreams. Let our taking control over our lives and over our nations be called 'democracy'!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky On Western Terrorism is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is now re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". He has just completed the feature documentary, "Rwanda Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

[Sep 18, 2017] A Foreign Enemy is a Tyrants Best Friend

Notable quotes:
"... This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks. ..."
"... Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime. ..."
"... The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners. ..."
Jul 28, 2015 | Antiwar.com

Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away

The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country. It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late last year.

Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.

That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.

This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.

Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan." Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable "guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on? Don't you know we're under siege?"

Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.

Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime.

The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.

The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.

Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam, both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.

Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.

Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.

All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond. Disastrously, it is being unheeded.

Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular than ever.

And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:

"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor, the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.

A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."

[Sep 18, 2017] Why Petraeus, Obama And Brennan Should Face 5,000 Years In Prison

Notable quotes:
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

California CEO Allegedly Smuggled Rifle Scopes to Syria - Daily Beast, August 1 2017

Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest, and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation, in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
---

Under Trump, a Hollowed-Out Force in Syria Quickly Lost CIA Backing - NY Times * , August 2, 2017

CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program ...

When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an equally larger scale.

* Note:

The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA documents show that it was over $1 billion per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.

Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM | Permalink

nmb | Aug 3, 2017 5:31:09 AM | 1

Easy: because they are war criminals.
V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:16 AM | 4
But, but, b; you're dealing with a rogue government of men; not laws. Should have been obvious in 2003, March 19th...
Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:28 AM | 5
In case there is any doubt, North Korea has already said arming "rebels" to over throw the government would face nuclear retaliation.
Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:52:50 AM | 6
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2 million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
Emily | Aug 3, 2017 5:54:48 AM | 7
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.

Is treason in the USA a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.

Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/274688/World/Region/,-Syrian-refugees-and-fighters-return-home-from-Le.aspx
V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 6:25:03 AM | 9
Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8

Informative link; thanks.

Peter AU 1 | Aug 3, 2017 6:30:12 AM | 10
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."

A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping is just too much of an attraction

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 6:52:48 AM | 12
add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people.
Anonymous | Aug 3, 2017 6:54:31 AM | 13
Mina @3. The title of the article is deceptive.

"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"

The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution. Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.

ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.

On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the likes of McCain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHBFkZZ1y40

librul | Aug 3, 2017 8:20:55 AM | 14
somebody @12,

Thanks for the link, it is a keeper.

"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."

My own addition to the Brennan record:

Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for 9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington, they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 8:36:06 AM | 15
14 add this New York Times link: U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities. ... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.

...

The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.

...

Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account.

When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel.

In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."

michaelj72 | Aug 3, 2017 8:43:35 AM | 16

"Many commit the same crime with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime; another a crown." ― Juvenal, The Satires

librul | Aug 3, 2017 9:09:59 AM | 17
somebody @15

one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA

Greenbean950 | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:03 AM | 18
NYT's article was a white wash. It was cover. NYT = CIA
paul | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:16 AM | 19
The art of limited hangout as practiced by the NYT
nonsense factory | Aug 3, 2017 10:15:14 AM | 20
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.

Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S. seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.

This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed, jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.

The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Leon-Panetta-supports-Hillary-Clinton-plan-to-arm-Syrian-rebels.html (Feb 2013)

Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).

Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet.

Send the lot to Scheveningen Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.

Jackrabbit | Aug 3, 2017 10:36:48 AM | 21
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 10:45:27 AM | 22
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well. Thanks b!
james | Aug 3, 2017 12:07:05 PM | 23
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward, not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world, but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 12:46:57 PM | 26
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy.

Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan.

As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/

RUKidding | Aug 3, 2017 12:56:29 PM | 27
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.

That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.

At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some of his damage.

Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back).

Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.

stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 1:15:55 PM | 28
Speaking of who DID get arrested, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/03/fbi-arrests-wannacry-hero-marcus-hutchins-las-vegas-reports/

Gee, wouldn't we like to see the arrest warrant?

NemesisCalling | Aug 3, 2017 1:16:29 PM | 29
@27 beating a dead horse, but I agree.

I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling the apocalypse.

Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc. I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling. I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world USA?

Mina | Aug 3, 2017 1:23:53 PM | 30
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/274706/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-and-Russia-broker-truce-between-Syrian-regim.aspx
harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:14:24 PM | 31
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria.

"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare as I understand it," McCain said. https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/

virgile | Aug 3, 2017 2:23:20 PM | 32
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:44:11 PM | 33
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government.

Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written off as an Assad apologist or worse.

Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange with then-ex Ambassador Ford: http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906

Noirette | Aug 3, 2017 2:48:20 PM | 34
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar' of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex. Meyssan, as an ex.:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html

In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade, a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.

Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where 'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.

The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance spun by the media, which works.

OJS | Aug 3, 2017 2:49:46 PM | 35
@virgile, 32

"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."

I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states) - freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!

My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and wealth, what religion does to a human?

karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 3:26:11 PM | 36
OJS @35--

Have you read Reg Morrison's Spirit in the Gene ? Here's a link to one of his related essays with many more of relevance on his website, https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/

ben | Aug 3, 2017 3:35:09 PM | 37
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.

You can include ALL the POTUS's and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."

john | Aug 3, 2017 4:16:52 PM | 38
ben says:

Duh, like never..Most here understand this, I'm sure right. like voyeurs, we like to watch , and watch , and watch .

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 4:23:25 PM | 39
35 Religion has nothing to do with it.

How to spot a Sociopath

6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way, is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.

The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources for the disorder on the internet.

fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 5:45:24 PM | 40
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. /s
OJS | Aug 3, 2017 8:12:07 PM | 42
@karlof1, 36

" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, ...."

Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere. Thanks sharing you thought.

falcemartello | Aug 3, 2017 9:03:06 PM | 43
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional. The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world ,debunked.

Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.

Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.

runaway robot | Aug 3, 2017 9:07:30 PM | 44
karlof1@36:
Thanks for reminding me about Reg Morrison! I need to re-read that book, slowly.
fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 9:20:33 PM | 45
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world,debunked.

Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.

Temporarily Sane | Aug 4, 2017 12:06:50 AM | 46
@45 fast freddy
This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him.

Except they don't hate him. Quite the opposite in fact. Looking to Trump as some sort of savior figure is absolutely ridiculous.

rm | Aug 4, 2017 12:17:56 AM | 47
Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q

Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.

[Sep 18, 2017] The Russian Hacking Story Continues to Unravel by Mike Whitney

The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their lives. Also Imran Awan story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case? They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
Sep 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled " The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections or hacked the servers at the DNC.

Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check out this clip from the report:

Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a non-state player.

ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party

HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia

ASSANGE: Yes.

HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party

("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?

No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that.

As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:

(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'

Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."

(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails", Daily Mail)

Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now.

But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?

Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"?

Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:

"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.

But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers?

Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?

The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.

According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that Russia was involved.

Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?

We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case. That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from the report:

"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.

The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.

3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.

4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."

( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)

Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door, the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as soon as I get the chance."

Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?

Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene, and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked by Russia?

The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions?

It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

Here's another interesting clip from the report:

"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed."

("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing, no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?

You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture, not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr and the goofy Russian lawyer?

Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!

What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.

A few words about the ICA Report

Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.

Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:

"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'

Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof" of anything?

Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually actively manipulate the election process."

Like we said, it's all baloney.

Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.)

The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:

"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)

Bingo.

Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.

Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Seamus Padraig > , September 14, 2017 at 12:43 pm GMT

In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding Ł40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over Ł100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/save-craig-murray/

Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs, when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in Britain for this very reason.

Somebody's after Craig Murray big-time.

elmer t. jones > , September 14, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.

Jonathan Mason > , September 15, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...

The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.

Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."

People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person only a few months earlier.

There is a pattern here, I think.

Miro23 > , September 15, 2017 at 3:29 am GMT

The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

The same that they were told to "stand down " on the plentiful 9/11 evidence that contradicts the government story (see especially what they were doing down in Florida, Daniel Hopsicker "Welcome to Terrorland" https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505445435&sr=8-2&keywords=daniel+hopsicker ).

I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear and greed.

exiled off mainstreet > , September 15, 2017 at 3:36 am GMT

Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.

dc.sunsets > , September 15, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

Fake news is gonna be fake.

Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.

They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting on a table in front of their eyes.

Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening, as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.

We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust, and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.

View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.

Backwoods Bob > , September 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT

It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based, and it has been working.

All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their grip.

I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.

In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.

CalDre > , September 16, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

The Alarmist > , September 16, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

The term "Stand Down" seems to crop up a lot in matters involving Hillary Clinton, no?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 16, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

I put some effort into editing the original text by Skip Folden and put into into .odt and .pdf. Also checked the links and highlighted some problems.

Have a go, I put it on Amazon S3 (imma supporting Bezos, here), it's easier to read on the train, too:

The+Non+Existent+Foundation+of+the+Russian+Hacking+Charge.pdf

The+Non+Existent+Foundation+of+the+Russian+Hacking+Charge.odt

Logging is off BTW.

El Dato > , September 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

Meanwhile, Stripped Nuts and Loose Screws:

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=66BF6DAD-0C50-4279-8EA2-018A8B17CAD7

"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."

Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY machines etc.)

Just go back to paper, you fcsking idiots.

Seamus Padraig > , September 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against.

Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.

Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Backwoods Bob > , September 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.

That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.

At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.

Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.

It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly, both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS.

We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international shipping containers.

Clear and Present Danger.

CalDre > , September 16, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

You want us to reverse the burden of proof

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

Lawrence Fitton > , September 16, 2017 at 7:51 pm GMT

in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the American public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv? But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.

JackOH > , September 16, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT

I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies.

CalDre > , September 17, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT

@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.

Seamus Padraig > , September 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

@CalDre

You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.

In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word 'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system, simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to Wikileaks whatsoever.

And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray for cooperating with Wikileaks.

FKA Max > , Website September 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT

This is a pretty amusing and insightful article, that might interest Unz Review readers:

'I Get Called a Russian Bot 50 Times a Day'

How a network of little-known Twitter "rooms" helps die-hard fans amplify Trump's message, attack CNN, and spread #MAGA to the world.

[Hide MORE]

Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest online controversy he helped stoke.

Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...]
But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration" and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.

"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."

He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.

"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.

"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition," Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."

People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity from "brain dead" Trump supporters.

– http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/09/twitter-trump-train-maga-echo-chamber-215470

... ... ...

JackOH > , September 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.

We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then, instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence, squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?

Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt the organization that's betrayed him.

As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to me a pile of horse dung.

jilles dykstra > , September 18, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?

Joe Hide > , September 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies, that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!

Wizard of Oz > , September 18, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution although your use of the wňrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).

Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically) rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.

Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.

Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.

Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?

I am intrigued by the Ł100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified .. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only Ł40,000!

Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site so the First Amendment should look after us.

Wizard of Oz > , September 18, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships? What facts?

[Sep 17, 2017] America could ironically be experiencing its very own Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.

Notable quotes:
"... Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers. ..."
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer." ..."
"... Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders ..."
"... I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written. ..."
Sep 17, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"The Art of the Deal?" revisited on 6 September 2017 I posted this just after DJT became president. In light of today's DJT agreement with the Democrats over McConnell and Ryans' heads it seems of continued relevance. pl

**************

"First, the President-elect must make a stab at uniting the country, after a scorched-earth campaign in which he consciously tore at the nation's gender, racial and economic fault lines to build a movement to win power. He's practicing some unusual humility. "I pledge to every citizen of our lands that I will be the president for the American people," Trump said in his victory speech Tuesday. "For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, for which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so we can work together and unify our great country." But his challenges were on clear display Wednesday as protests broke out from Boston to Los Angeles." ------------- The crazies with their foreheads painted "not my president" don't bother me. They can march around the big cities all they want. Rain will come. Snow and wind will come and they will go home. The progressive cause has taken a mighty hit but it will re-assert itself.

There are two real question facing the US as to what sort of president will Trump be.

1. Thus far he looks to me to be a man who will play a dominan role deciding major issues himself and will make deals with whomever has the power to entable him to reach his goals.

IMO that means that the Republicans in Congress will either go along with Trump's legislative proposals or see Trump go across the aisle to seek votes.

A good example would be whatever it is that Trump decides that he wants to do about the obvious failure that is the ACA, presently sinking under the weight of far higher costs than expected and smaller enrollments. Democrats understand that the law must be modified for it to survive and to preserve the increase in health care coverage that it has brought. The hardline Republicans in both Houses of Congress want to destroy Obamacare and they have no realistic alternative other than the usual blather about private health accounts. Trump will not want to alienate his working class followers. Why would Trump not make a deal with the Democrats to get what he wants and needs?

2. There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in achieving power in his cabinet. The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an unmitigated disaster. pl

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-transition/index.html

kao_hsien_chih -> Kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 05:41 PM

I have a bit of soft spot for Gingrich: I've found him, at least in his Congressional career, to be very unprincipled in a good way, meaning that he is willing to negotiate and cut deals when he feels is necessary, rather than hold on to his "principles" like a madman to the end, and ironically, is willing to pay a high personal price for the sake of compromise. That, plus, his usually good read of the political terrain can make him a very good advisor, although his total lack of tact and uncanny ability to stuff both feet into his mouth make for a bad front man.

I realized this during the Clinton impeachment fight: he basically lost speakership because he tried to go behind other Republican leaders' backs to work out a compromise for censure with the Democratic leaders, rather than go ahead with the impeachment vote. Other Republican leaders did not take kindly to it and ousted him, but, however much that act of spite--the impeachment vote supported only by Republicans--might have satisfied their self-righteousness, it did the Republicans no good, while a bipartisan censure might have carried real political bite in the long term.

johnf -> kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 05:41 PM
With Move On on the move, it seems that America could ironically be experiencing its very own Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.

As for the progressives, Bernie already seems to be putting the message out. And after their major defeat, I doubt if the neo-con and neo-liberal Clintonistas will have much sway within the party. Bernie's chosen successor and Elizabeth Warren would both be serious challengers.

Kooshy -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:02 PM
Being still on some of the so called democratic organization mailing list, last night I got an email for move on asking supporters to attend anti-Trump demonstrations all over the country.

They even had a zip code link to where you could find. Demonstration/ gathering near you some in private residences. Their agenda and Is to pressure Trump early on, from what I learned on how Trump beat them on the poles, I don't think or hope they can succeed.

kooshy -> Kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 10:08 PM
Here is the link on email I got from the pathetic Move On,

http://act.moveon.org/event/Solidarity_gatherings/?source=couragecampaign

Kooshy -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:06 PM
Start getting worried if you see Victoria N cookies in Time Square
ex-PFC Chuck -> kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 12:23 PM
Or Soros, allegedly its primary beneficiary, could rename it "Won't Move On."
Martin Oline -> ex-PFC Chuck... , 10 November 2016 at 01:29 PM
PFC Chuck:

Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers.

There are probably many powerful people who believe they won't be able to manipulate our president-elect. I suspect that Tel Aviv would much rather deal with Mike Pense than the Donald. I'm not a religious person but I think I'll start praying for Trump's health.

I remember Nixon supposedly saying he selected Agnew as his vice president because no one would try to assassinate him because they'd get Spiro.

Seeing the winner of his first presidential campaign getting shot probably made him much more aware of that possibility than the average citizen. I don't know if he chose Spiro for that reason but it was interesting that Agnew was removed just before his administration came to an end.

oofda -> kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 05:03 PM
No- they were spontaneous after the election- the kid of a friend of mine at one of the California universities reported that.

The Colonel is spot on about Bolton -- appointing him to State would be an unmitigated disaster. Check his history- in addition to being an incompetent manager -- he is one of those who puts the interests of another country ahead of the USA...

Pitch Pole , 10 November 2016 at 10:41 AM
There's a natural tendency to over extrapolate on the state of the progressive cause or liberalism in America from the election result. The election was lost by the democratic establishment which, while it has its liberal or progressive elements, is firmly a corporatist, statist organization. The presidency and the senate, though probably not the house, were lost by an ingrown and complacent party bent on crowning their seriously flawed queen. We will never know for sure - but if they had put up Biden instead of shoving him aside, we'd still be talking about the fate of the republican party. Bernie would have been a wild card, but the primaries showed him getting lots of votes in the places that put Trump into the whitehouse.

It will be interesting to see how positive everyone remains once the Republicans own the show for a few years. Will everyone on this board still be so glowing with what appears to be their apparent full embrace of Israel's priorities? If we pull the Iran deal and start the air campaign? When those manufacturing and coal mining jobs don't come flooding back?

It was a devil's choice and not the outcome I would have wanted, however half heartedly, so I'm keeping an open mind. Trump has no fixed core beliefs and revels in pissing up anyone's leg whenever he feels like it, and that might be a feature not a bug. At this juncture, I'm more concerned with the people to whom he's going to delegate so much. Those guys we've seen in action for long enough to be very worried....

- Pitch

johnf , 10 November 2016 at 12:46 PM
On Trump seeking Democrat support in Congress:

"Sanders: I'm 'Prepared To Work With' Trump On Economic Issues

"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer."

"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him," Sanders added."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-prepared-work-with-trump

kao_hsien_chih -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:45 PM
God, I honestly hope that kind of cooperation works out--Democratic deplorables working together with the Republican deplorables, for the betterment of the country. The stage is set for that kind of enterprise, now that both parties' elites lie in wreck humbled.
Mishkilji -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:47 PM
Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8

Earthrise , 10 November 2016 at 06:20 PM
I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written.

This is what hope feels like.

[Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

Highly recommended!
Apr 30, 2012 | www.monbiot.com

Colonialism never ended, it continues by different means.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st May 2012

The conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is said to have sent an unequivocal message to current leaders: that great office confers no immunity. In fact it sent two messages: if you run a small, weak nation, you may be subject to the full force of international law. If you run a powerful nation, you have nothing to fear.

While anyone with an interest in human rights should welcome the verdict, it reminds us that no one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq. This fits the Nuremberg Tribunal's definition of a "crime of aggression", which it called "the supreme international crime"( 1 ). The charges on which, in an impartial system, George Bush, Tony Blair and their associates should have been investigated are far graver than those for which Taylor was found guilty.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, claims that Taylor's conviction "demonstrates that those who have committed the most serious of crimes can and will be held to account for their actions."( 2 ) But the International Criminal Court, though it was established ten years ago, and though the crime of aggression has been recognised in international law since 1945, still has no jurisdiction over "the most serious of crimes"( 3 ). This is because the powerful nations, for obvious reasons, are procrastinating. Nor have the United Kingdom, the United States and other western nations incorporated the crime of aggression into their own legislation. International law remains an imperial project, in which only the crimes committed by vassal states are punished.

In this respect it corresponds to other global powers. Despite its trumpeted reforms, the International Monetary Fund remains under the control of the United States and the former colonial powers. All constitutional matters still require an 85% share of the vote( 4 ). By an inexplicable oversight, the United States retains 16.7%, ensuring that it possesses a veto over subsequent reforms( 5 ). Belgium still has eight times the votes of Bangladesh( 6 ), Italy a bigger share than India and the United Kingdom and France between them more voting power than the 49 African members(7). The managing director remains, as imperial tradition insists, a European, her deputy an American.

The IMF, as a result, is still the means by which western financial markets project their power into the rest of the world. At the end of last year, for example, it published a paper pressing emerging economies to increase their "financial depth", which it defines as "the total financial claims and counterclaims of an economy"( 8 ). This, it claimed, would insulate them from crisis.

As the Bretton Woods Project points out, emerging nations with large real economies and small financial sectors were the countries which best weathered the economic crisis, which was caused by advanced economies with large financial sectors(9). Like the modern opium war it waged in the 1980s and 1990s – when it forced Asian countries to liberalise their currencies, permitting western financial speculators to attack them(10) – the IMF's prescriptions are incomprehensible until they are understood as instruments of financial power.

Decolonisation did not take place until the former colonial powers and the empires of capital on whose behalf they operated had established other means of retaining control. Some, like the IMF and World Bank, have remained almost unchanged. Others, like the programme of extraordinary rendition, evolved in response to new challenges to global hegemony.

As the kidnapping of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife suggests, the UK's foreign and intelligence services see themselves as a global police force, minding the affairs of other nations. In 2004, after Tony Blair, with one eye on possible contracts for British oil companies, decided that Gaddafi was a useful asset, the alliance was sealed with the capture, packaging and delivery of the regime's dissenters( 11 ).

Like the colonial crimes the British government committed in Kenya and elsewhere( 12 ), whose concealment was sustained by the Foreign Office until its secret archives were revealed last month( 13 ), the rendition programme was hidden from public view. Just as the colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to parliament about the detention and torture of the Kikuyu(14), in 2005 Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told parliament that "there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition."( 15 )

Reading the emails passed between the offices of James Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt, it struck me that here too is a government which sees itself as an agent of empire – Murdoch's in this case – and which sees the electorate as ornamental. Working, against the public interest, for News Corporation, the financial sector and the billionaire donors to the Conservative party, its ministers act as capital's district commissioners, governing Britain as their forebears governed the colonies.

The bid for power, oil and spheres of influence that Bush and Blair launched in Mesopotamia, using the traditional camouflage of the civilising mission; the colonial war still being fought in Afghanistan, 199 years after the Great Game began; the global policing functions the great powers have arrogated to themselves; the one-sided justice dispensed by international law: all these suggest that imperialism never ended, but merely mutated into new forms. The virtual empire knows no boundaries. Until we begin to recognise and confront it, all of us, black and white, will remain its subjects.

www.monbiot.com

[Sep 16, 2017] Germany Is About to Choose a Leader. Heres the Situation

Sep 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

After Mr. Trump's victory last year, Ms. Merkel emerged as the " last powerful defender of Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance ," wrote Alison Smale and Steven Erlanger, then the Times bureau chiefs for Berlin and London.

Ms. Smale and Glenn Thrush, a White House correspondent for The Times, took a look at Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump, two powerful leaders "estranged by widely diverging temperaments, worldviews, leadership styles and visions of Europe." Ms. Merkel -- who, in more than 11 years in power, has "proved uncommonly adept at solving the puzzle-box challenges posed by the world's most unpredictable leaders" -- may realize there isn't a method with Mr. Trump, they wrote.

The best she has come up with so far is to cultivate a backdoor channel through the president's daughter Ivanka, who tried unsuccessfully to persuade her father to remain in the Paris accord.

But Ms. Merkel is up for re-election in the fall, and challenging Mr. Trump has become essential in German politics. So Ms. Merkel, the courteous daughter of a Protestant cleric, is doing something she finds awkward: calling out Mr. Trump in public and questioning his commitment to the American leadership that Europeans had taken for granted since World War II.

To understand Ms. Merkel's relationship with Mr. Putin, don't miss this in-depth piece on their rivalry of history, distrust and power (Mar. 12) by Ms. Smale and Andrew Higgins, a Moscow correspondent:

Their relationship, and rivalry, is a microcosm of the sharply divergent visions clashing in Europe and beyond, a divide made more consequential by the uncertainty over President Trump's policy toward Russia and whether he will redefine the traditional alliances of American foreign policy.

The Merkel-Putin relationship is defined by wariness, mutual suspicion, if also mutual respect. Yet along the way, there have been missed opportunities and misjudgments, which are culminating now in a moment of reckoning, as Ms. Merkel tries for another term -- and Mr. Putin's Russia is accused of working to thwart her.

That piece also includes a nugget about talks between the two leaders in 2007: Mr. Putin let his large black Labrador into their meeting room, even though the Kremlin had been told that Ms. Merkel was uneasy around dogs.

[Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy. ..."
Sep 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

theguardian.com

George Monbiot's the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century. To read Nancy MacLean's new book, Democracy in Chains : The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.

The history professor's work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch .

Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich. The programme is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises , and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses.

James Buchanan brought these influences together to create what he called public choice theory . He argued that a society could not be considered free unless every citizen has the right to veto its decisions. What he meant by this was that no one should be taxed against their will. But the rich were being exploited by people who use their votes to demand money that others have earned, through involuntary taxes to support public spending and welfare. Allowing workers to form trade unions and imposing graduated income taxes were forms of "differential or discriminatory legislation" against the owners of capital.

Any clash between "freedom" (allowing the rich to do as they wish) and democracy should be resolved in favour of freedom. In his book The Limits of Liberty , he noted that "despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure that we observe." Despotism in defence of freedom.

His prescription was a "constitutional revolution": creating irrevocable restraints to limit democratic choice. Sponsored throughout his working life by wealthy foundations, billionaires and corporations, he developed a theoretical account of what this constitutional revolution would look like, and a strategy for implementing it.

He explained how attempts to desegregate schooling in the American south could be frustrated by setting up a network of state-sponsored private schools. It was he who first proposed privatizing universities, and imposing full tuition fees on students: his original purpose was to crush student activism. He urged privatization of social security and many other functions of the state. He sought to break the links between people and government, and demolish trust in public institutions. He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy.

In 1980, he was able to put the programme into action. He was invited to Chile , where he helped the Pinochet dictatorship write a new constitution, which, partly through the clever devices Buchanan proposed, has proved impossible to reverse entirely. Amid the torture and killings, he advised the government to extend programmes of privatisation, austerity, monetary restraint, deregulation and the destruction of trade unions: a package that helped trigger economic collapse in 1982.

None of this troubled the Swedish Academy, which through his devotee at Stockholm University Assar Lindbeck in 1986 awarded James Buchanan the Nobel memorial prize for economics . It is one of several decisions that have turned this prize toxic.

Koch officials said that the network's midterm budget for policy and politics is between $300m and $400m, but donors are demanding legislative progress

But his power really began to be felt when Koch, currently the seventh richest man in the US, decided that Buchanan held the key to the transformation he sought. Koch saw even such ideologues as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan as "sellouts", as they sought to improve the efficiency of government rather than destroy it altogether . But Buchanan took it all the way.

MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan's work at George Mason University, whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded thinktanks as they do academic faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary "cadre" that would implement his programme (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to study Lenin's techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop a programme for changing the rules.

The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that "conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential". Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical "reforms". (The same argument is used by those attacking the NHS). Gradually they would build a "counter-intelligentsia", allied to a "vast network of political power" that would become the new establishment.

Through the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored, through their transformation of the Republican party, and the hundreds of millions they have poured into state congressional and judicial races, through the mass colonisation of Trump's administration by members of this network and lethally effective campaigns against everything from public health to action on climate change, it would be fair to say that Buchanan's vision is maturing in the US.

But not just there. Reading this book felt like a demisting of the window through which I see British politics. The bonfire of regulations highlighted by the Grenfell Tower disaster, the destruction of state architecture through austerity, the budgeting rules, the dismantling of public services, tuition fees and the control of schools: all these measures follow Buchanan's programme to the letter. I wonder how many people are aware that David Cameron's free schools project stands in a tradition designed to hamper racial desegregation in the American south.

In one respect, Buchanan was right: there is an inherent conflict between what he called "economic freedom" and political liberty. Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism and democracy. You cannot have both.

Buchanan's programme is a prescription for totalitarian capitalism. And his disciples have only begun to implement it. But at least, thanks to MacLean's discoveries, we can now apprehend the agenda. One of the first rules of politics is, know your enemy. We're getting there.

[Sep 13, 2017] Fascism was a form of far right naationalism. Jabotinsky centered his spiritual being in Rome, and greatly admired Mussolini and sought to incorporate his ideas in Revisionist Zionism

Sep 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

August 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT SolontoCroesus > > , August 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.

Poetic, jilles dykstra, but as an Italian given to bluntness, I'd state it somewhat differently: Most people who sling the epithet "fascist" do not know what the hell they are talking about. I suggest they read Giovanni Gentile's Origins and Doctrine of Fascism

http://www.lancasterlawoffice.com/Media/Gentile,%20Origins%20and%20Doctrine%20of%20Fascism.pdf

It's going to require a bit of effort -- a lot of effort, in fact to fully understand Gentile and what he/Mussolini hoped to achieve through Fascism -- The effort will likely tax the most ambitious of our stenographer/journalist class: you'll have to take on board an understanding of Italy's fragmented history, and especially of Italy's relationship to Catholicism: it's easy for me, I lived it, but Brian Lamb was absolutely flummoxed when Maurizio Viroli tried to explain to him that Italians incorporate within themselves holy-joe pious Catholic practices with utter disdain for Church strictures -- https://www.c-span.org/video/?160904-1/niccolos-smile

As an Italian, I would, of course, play some beautiful music in the background. Tchaikovsky gathered charming Italian folk music and composed the dynamic Capriccio Italien:

PS Our Jewish/zionist friends might find it intriguing that Jabotinsky centered his "spiritual being" in Rome, and greatly admired Mussolini and sought to incorporate his ideas in Revisionist Zionism.

[Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

Highly recommended!
This is a weak and way too long article. That demonstrated inability to think in scientific terms such neoliberalism, neocolonialism and end of cheap oil. Intead it quckly deteriorated into muchy propaganda. But it touches on legacy of Troskyst Burnham, who was one of God fathers of neoliberalism.
Zelikov is the guy who whitewashed 9/11. This neocon does not use the term neoliberalism even once but he writes like a real neoliberal Trotskyite.
Notable quotes:
"... The Managerial State ..."
"... Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated admiration." ..."
"... Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster. ..."
"... Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice." ..."
"... Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted." ..."
"... "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all." ..."
"... Nineteen Eighty-Four. ..."
"... By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became one of the original editors of the National Review ..."
"... Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism ..."
"... What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. ..."
"... Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our ..."
"... "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes." ..."
Sep 05, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

My first prophet was a man named James Burnham. In 1941 Burnham was 35 years old. From a wealthy family -- railroad money -- he was a star student at Princeton, then on to Balliol College, Oxford. Burnham was an avowed Communist. He joined with Trotsky during the 1930s.

By 1941, Burnham had moved on, as he published his first great book of prophecy, called The Managerial State . The book made him a celebrity. It was widely discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.

Burnham's vision of the future is one where the old ideologies, like socialism, have been left behind. The rulers are really beyond all that. They are the managerial elite, the technocrats, the scientists, and the bureaucrats who manage the all-powerful enterprises and agencies.

You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias. You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.

It's a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine themselves and their future.

In this and other writings, Burnham held up Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as the pure exemplars of these emerging managerial states. They were showing the way to the future. By comparison, FDR's New Deal was a primitive version. And he thought it would lose.

Burnham's views were not so unusual among the leading thinkers of the 1940s, like Joseph Schumpeter or Karl Polanyi. All were pessimistic about the future of free societies, including Friedrich Hayek, who really believed that once-free countries were on the "road to serfdom." But Burnham took the logic further.

Just after the second world war ended, my other prophet decided to answer Burnham. You know him as George Orwell.

Eric Blair, who used George Orwell as his pen name, was about Burnham's age. Their backgrounds were very different. Orwell was English. Poor. Orwell's lungs were pretty rotten and he would not live long. Orwell was a democratic socialist who came to loathe Soviet communism. He had volunteered to fight in Spain, was shot through the throat. Didn't stop his writing.

Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated admiration."

Orwell wrote : For Burnham, "Communism may be wicked, but at any rate it is big: it is a terrible, all-devouring monster which one fights against but which one cannot help admiring." To Orwell, Burnham's mystical picture of "terrifying, irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement." irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement."

Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster.

Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice."

Orwell thought that "power worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."

Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted."

Finally, Orwell thought Burnham overestimated the resilience of the managerial state model and underestimated the qualities of open and civilized societies. Burnham's vision did not allow enough play for "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all."

Having written these critical essays, Orwell then tried to make his case against Burnham in another way. This anti-Burnham argument became a novel -- the novel called Nineteen Eighty-Four.

That book came out in 1949. Orwell died the next year.

By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became one of the original editors of the National Review and a major conservative commentator. In 1983, President Reagan awarded Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Not that Burnham's core vision had changed. In 1964, he published another book of prophecy. This was entitled Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism . The Soviet Union and its allies had the will to power. Liberalism and its defenders did not. "The primary issue before Western civilization today, and before its member nations, is survival." (Sound familiar?)

And it was liberalism, Burnham argued, with its self-criticism and lack of commitment, that would pull our civilization down from within. Suicide.

So was Burnham wrong? Was Orwell right? This is a first-class historical question. Burnham's ideal of the "managerial state" is so alive today.

State the questions another way: Do open societies really work better than closed ones? Is a more open and civilized world really safer and better for Americans? If we think yes, then what is the best way to prove that point?

My answer comes in three parts. The first is about how to express our core values. American leaders tend to describe their global aims as the promotion of the right values. Notice that these are values in how other countries are governed. President Obama's call for an "international order of laws and institutions," had the objective of winning a clash of domestic governance models around the world. This clash he called: "authoritarianism versus liberalism."

Yet look at how many values he felt "liberalism" had to include. For Obama the "road of true democracy," included a commitment to "liberty, equality, justice, and fairness" and curbing the "excesses of capitalism."

What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. "

A week later, two of his chief aides, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster, doubled down on the theme that America was promoting, with its friends, the values that "drive progress throughout the world." They too had a laundry list. They omitted "sovereignty." But then, narrowing the list only to the "most important," they listed: "[T]he dignity of every person equality of women innovation freedom of speech and of religion and free and fair markets."

By contrast, the anti-liberal core values seem simple. The anti-liberals are for authority and against anarchy and disorder. And they are for community and against the subversive, disruptive outsider.

There are of course many ways to define a "community" -- including tribal, religious, political, or professional. It is a source of identity, of common norms of behavior, of shared ways of life.

Devotees of freedom and liberalism do not dwell as much on "community." Except to urge that everybody be included, and treated fairly.

But beliefs about "community" have always been vital to human societies. In many ways, the last 200 years have been battles about how local communities try to adapt or fight back against growing global pressures -- especially economic and cultural, but often political and even military.

So much of the divide between anti-liberals or liberals is cultural. Little has to do with "policy" preferences. Mass politics are defined around magnetic poles of cultural attraction. If Americans engage this culture war on a global scale, I plead for modesty and simplicity. As few words as possible, as fundamental as possible.

Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our government does.

Also, until the late 19th century, "democracy" was never at the core of liberal thinking. Liberal thinkers were very interested in the design of republics. But classical liberal thinkers, including many of the American founders, always had a troubled relationship with democracy. There were always two issues.

First, liberals were devoted, above all, to liberty of thought and reason. Pace Tom Paine, the people were often regarded as intolerant, ill-informed, and superstitious -- unreliable judges of scientific truth, historical facts, moral duty, and legal disputes. The other problem is that democracy used to be considered a synonym for mob rule. Elections can be a supreme check on tyranny. But sometimes the people have exalted their dictators and have not cared overmuch about the rule of law. It therefore still puzzles me: Why is there so much debate about which people are "ready for democracy"? Few of the old theorists thought any people were ready for such a thing.

It was thought, though, that any civilized people might be persuaded to reject tyranny. Any civilized community might prefer a suitably designed and confining constitution, limiting powers and working at a reliable rule of law.

By the way, that "rule of law" was a value that Mr. Cohn and General McMaster left off of their "most important" list -- yet is anything more essential to our way of life?

Aside from the relation with democracy, the other great ideal that any liberal order finds necessary, yet troubling, is the one about community: nationalism.

Consider the case of Poland. For 250 years, Poland has been a great symbol to the rest of Europe. For much of Polish and European history, nationalism was an ally of liberalism. Versus Czarist tyranny, versus aristocratic oligarchs.

But sometimes not. Today, Poland's governing Law and Justice party is all about being anti-Russian, anti-Communist, and pro-Catholic. They are all about "authority" and "community." At the expense of ? Poland's president has just had to intervene when the rule of law itself seemed to be at stake.

We Americans and our friends should define what we stand for. Define it in a way that builds a really big tent. In 1989, working for the elder President Bush, I was able to get the phrase, "commonwealth of free nations," into a couple of the president's speeches. It didn't stick. Nearly 20 years later, in 2008, the late Harvard historian Ernest May and I came up with a better formulation. We thought that through human history the most adaptable and successful societies had turned out to be the ones that were "open and civilized."

Rather than the word, "liberal," the word "open" seems more useful. It is the essence of liberty. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi uses it in his speeches; Karl Popper puts it at the core of his philosophy; Anne-Marie Slaughter makes it a touchstone in her latest book. That's a big tent right there.

Also the ideal of being "civilized." Not such an old-fashioned ideal. It gestures to the yearning for community. Not only a rule of law, also community norms, the norms that reassure society and regulate rulers -- whether in a constitution or in holy scripture.

Chinese leaders extol the value of being civilized -- naturally, they commingle it with Sinification. Muslims take pride in a heritage that embraces norms of appropriate conduct by rulers. And, of course, in an open society, community norms can be contested and do evolve.

The retired Indian statesman, Shyam Saran, recently lectured on, "Is a China-centric world inevitable?" To Saran, "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes."

... ... ...

Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia, and is a former executive director of the 9/11 Commission.

[Sep 03, 2017] Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey

Trump should probably fire Comey on Day 1 without any explanations. Or referring just to his behaviour with Clinton email scandal. But Trump hands were tied by the decision not to prosecute Hillary which probably was forced on him as a precondition of his ability to occupy the position for which he was elected.
Appointing Special Prosecutor gambit in this case would became more difficult, but Deep State was determined to paralyze Trump administration one way or another.
So the pretext would probably be found quickly and witch hunt were re-launch by MSM with the same result
Notable quotes:
"... Among Mr. McGahn's concerns were references to private conversations the president had with Mr. Comey, including times when the F.B.I. director told Mr. Trump he was not under investigation in the F.B.I.'s continuing Russia inquiry. ..."
"... Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing Mr. Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to disrupt last year's presidential election, as well as whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice. ..."
"... Mr. Trump and his aides gave multiple justifications for Mr. Comey's dismissal in the days after he was fired. The first rationale was that the F.B.I. director had mishandled the Clinton email case. Another was that Mr. Comey had lost the confidence of the F.B.I. During an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, Mr. Trump went so far as to call Mr. Comey a "nut job" and said that firing him lifted pressure off the White House. ..."
Sep 01, 2017 | nytimes.com
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has obtained a letter drafted by President Trump and a top political aide that offered an unvarnished view of Mr. Trump's thinking in the days before the president fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
The circumstances and reasons for the firing are believed to be a significant element of Mr. Mueller's investigation, which includes whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice by firing Mr. Comey.

The letter, drafted in May, was met with opposition from Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, who believed that its angry, meandering tone was problematic, according to interviews with a dozen administration officials and others briefed on the matter. Among Mr. McGahn's concerns were references to private conversations the president had with Mr. Comey, including times when the F.B.I. director told Mr. Trump he was not under investigation in the F.B.I.'s continuing Russia inquiry.

Mr. McGahn successfully blocked the president from sending the letter -- which Mr. Trump had composed with Stephen Miller, one of the president's top political advisers -- to Mr. Comey. But a copy was given to the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who then drafted his own letter. Mr. Rosenstein's letter was ultimately used as the Trump administration's public rationale for Mr. Comey's firing, which was that Mr. Comey had mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing Mr. Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to disrupt last year's presidential election, as well as whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

Mr. McGahn's concerns about Mr. Trump's letter show how much he realized that the president's rationale for firing Mr. Comey might not hold up to scrutiny, and how he and other administration officials sought to build a more defensible public case for his ouster.

Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer, declined on Friday to discuss the letter or its contents. "To the extent the special prosecutor is interested in these matters, we will be fully transparent with him," he said.

Mr. Trump and his aides gave multiple justifications for Mr. Comey's dismissal in the days after he was fired. The first rationale was that the F.B.I. director had mishandled the Clinton email case. Another was that Mr. Comey had lost the confidence of the F.B.I. During an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, Mr. Trump went so far as to call Mr. Comey a "nut job" and said that firing him lifted pressure off the White House.

[Sep 03, 2017] Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey

Leaks and attack on Trump by neoliberals continue unabated...
Notable quotes:
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has obtained a letter drafted by President Trump and a top political aide that offered an unvarnished view of Mr. Trump's thinking in the days before the president fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
Sep 03, 2017 | www.msn.com

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has obtained a letter drafted by President Trump and a top political aide that offered an unvarnished view of Mr. Trump's thinking in the days before the president fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

The circumstances and reasons for the firing are believed to be a significant element of Mr. Mueller's investigation, which includes whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice by firing Mr. Comey.

The letter, drafted in May, was met with opposition from Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, who believed that its angry, meandering tone was problematic, according to interviews with a dozen administration officials and others briefed on the matter. Among Mr. McGahn's concerns were references to private conversations the president had with Mr. Comey, including times when the F.B.I. director told Mr. Trump he was not under investigation in the F.B.I.'s continuing Russia inquiry.

Mr. McGahn successfully blocked the president from sending the letter -- which Mr. Trump had composed with Stephen Miller, one of the president's top political advisers -- to Mr. Comey. But a copy was given to the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who then drafted his own letter. Mr. Rosenstein's letter was ultimately used as the Trump administration's public rationale for Mr. Comey's firing, which was that Mr. Comey had mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing Mr. Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to disrupt last year's presidential election, as well as whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

Mr. McGahn's concerns about Mr. Trump's letter show how much he realized that the president's rationale for firing Mr. Comey might not hold up to scrutiny, and how he and other administration officials sought to build a more defensible public case for his ouster.

Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer, declined on Friday to discuss the letter or its contents. "To the extent the special prosecutor is interested in these matters, we will be fully transparent with him," he said.

Mr. Trump and his aides gave multiple justifications for Mr. Comey's dismissal in the days after he was fired. The first rationale was that the F.B.I. director had mishandled the Clinton email case. Another was that Mr. Comey had lost the confidence of the F.B.I. During an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, Mr. Trump went so far as to call Mr. Comey a "nut job" and said that firing him lifted pressure off the White House.

[Sep 03, 2017] Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey

get=
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has obtained a letter drafted by President Trump and a top political aide that offered an unvarnished view of Mr. Trump's thinking in the days before the president fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
The circumstances and reasons for the firing are believed to be a significant element of Mr. Mueller's investigation, which includes whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice by firing Mr. Comey.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

The letter, drafted in May, was met with opposition from Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, who believed that its angry, meandering tone was problematic, according to interviews with a dozen administration officials and others briefed on the matter. Among Mr. McGahn's concerns were references to private conversations the president had with Mr. Comey, including times when the F.B.I. director told Mr. Trump he was not under investigation in the F.B.I.'s continuing Russia inquiry.

Mr. McGahn successfully blocked the president from sending the letter -- which Mr. Trump had composed with Stephen Miller, one of the president's top political advisers -- to Mr. Comey. But a copy was given to the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who then drafted his own letter. Mr. Rosenstein's letter was ultimately used as the Trump administration's public rationale for Mr. Comey's firing, which was that Mr. Comey had mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing Mr. Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to disrupt last year's presidential election, as well as whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

Mr. McGahn's concerns about Mr. Trump's letter show how much he realized that the president's rationale for firing Mr. Comey might not hold up to scrutiny, and how he and other administration officials sought to build a more defensible public case for his ouster.

Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer, declined on Friday to discuss the letter or its contents. "To the extent the special prosecutor is interested in these matters, we will be fully transparent with him," he said.

Mr. Trump and his aides gave multiple justifications for Mr. Comey's dismissal in the days after he was fired. The first rationale was that the F.B.I. director had mishandled the Clinton email case. Another was that Mr. Comey had lost the confidence of the F.B.I. During an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, Mr. Trump went so far as to call Mr. Comey a "nut job" and said that firing him lifted pressure off the White House.

Sep 03, 2017 | www.msn.com

[Sep 03, 2017] Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump

The campaign of leaks to undermine Trump and his administration continues unabated...
Sep 03, 2017 | www.msn.com
During his final moments in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama folded into thirds a handwritten letter to Donald Trump, slid it into an envelope, and in neat capital letters addressed it to "Mr. President."

Now, the contents of that letter -- the last direct communication between the 44th and 45th presidents -- have emerged for the first time after CNN obtained a copy.

With latest jabs, Trump-Obama relationship reaches historic nastiness

[Sep 03, 2017] Al Gore Advises President Trump To Resign

Media attack on Trump continues unabated...
Sep 03, 2017 | www.msn.com

During a recent interview with LADbible, when Al Gore was asked what advice he would give President Trump, he simply responded, "resign."

[Sep 02, 2017] Russiagate fade, but embarrsing details will be steadily leaked just to keep Trump and his administration in check. Witch hunt continues althouth it is now clear that the attempt to sink Trump via Russiagate is a more difficult undertaking that DemoRats assumed

Sep 02, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

"The Trump-Russia story survives, even as evidence of collusion fades" [Ed Rogers, WaPo ]. "Anyway, the previously gathering storm of Russian collusion seems to be breaking up into a few unconnected showers that won't soak Trump.

Lightening won't strike, Trump's presidency won't be killed. He won't even catch a cold.

Trump's associates could be in trouble for offenses that occurred before the Trump campaign even started. Others may be embarrassed by their amateur language and behavior during the campaign, and a few may look evasive or dishonest as a result of their attempts to justify or deny their actions once the investigation began."

Rogers is a Republican, and while not a #NeverTrump supporter , not a pom-pom waver either. Anyhow, the totally-in-good-faith-always liberal Democrats seem to have moved on to fresh memes and postures new. A blessing, I suppose.

"Why Is Everyone So Craven?" [ Slate ]. Brutal take-down of the Democrat nomenklatura :

Resistance-minded Democratic Party politicians have become fond of declaring that Donald Trump is trampling, assaulting, and attacking the ideals of American democracy by ignoring corruption rules, bullying institutions like the FBI, letting Russia off the hook for sabotaging our last election, etc.

And it's true: Trump is abusing, molesting, and committing genocide against every standard of honesty and ethical conduct that has ever existed in United States public life.

But the institutional Democrats' newfound and ostentatious affection for the sacred principles of civil society can ring hollow, and two recent stories involving well-connected Democrats faced with decisions between upholding small-d democratic ideals and helping powerful interests maintain their power demonstrate why that is.

[Sep 01, 2017] South Koreas Greatest Fear (and It Isnt a North Korean Invasion)

Sep 01, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
spending nearly $13.7 billion. Just two years ago, it seemed that Seoul and Beijing were embarking on a honeymoon phase when President Park Geun-hye attended a military parade in Tiananmen Square commemorating the end of World War II!the only U.S. ally to do so.

Then THAAD happened.

In July 2016, Seoul and Washington announced their decision to deploy the anti-missile system. China opposed the deployment, saying it undermined China's security and would destabilize the region because its radars could be used by the United States to track China's missile activities.

China wanted to "teach South Korea a lesson" for the effrontery of the THAAD deployment. Shortly after the announcement, Beijing banned the airing of Korean TV shows, films, and K-pop acts in China. After it was revealed that Lotte Group!a South Korean conglomerate operating 112 stores in mainland China!once owned the land THAAD would be based on, Chinese state media called for a nationwide boycott of the company. By March 2017, nearly half of Lotte's stores on the mainland were shutdown , due to vague "safety violations." That same month, Beijing banned its travel agencies from selling trips to Korea, resulting in a 66 percent decrease in Chinese visitors from last year. Shortly after President Moon Jae-in was elected to the Blue House in May 2017, he announced the suspension of further THAAD deployments until further review.

Many South Koreans told me they expected blowback from the decision to deploy THAAD, but the swiftness and intensity of Beijing's retaliation caught them off guard. Beijing's response to THAAD, they said, "opened our [South Korean] eyes to China's true colors ." Simply put, they believed Beijing could not be relied on to consider South Korea's interests if China's interests were on the line. This disillusionment is fanning mistrust and has damaged China's image in South Korea. A March 2017 Asan Institute poll found that, for the first time ever , Koreans had a more favorable view of Japan than of China. This was a shocking finding; Japan has consistently been South Koreans' least favorite country after North Korea.

In spite of growing mistrust, South Koreans recognize the crucial role Beijing plays in reining in Pyongyang. Many interlocutors said they believed, in spite of THAAD, that Chinese officials wanted to maintain good relations with South Korea!albeit on China's terms.

[Sep 01, 2017] Raghuram Rajan: Populist Nationalism Is the First Step Toward Crony Capitalism

Sep 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Asher Schechter at ProMarket discusses Raghuram Rajan's views on the rise of populist nationalism:

Raghuram Rajan: Populist Nationalism Is "the First Step Toward Crony Capitalism" : The wave of populist nationalism that has been sweeping through Western democracies in the past two years is "a cry for help from communities who have seen growth bypass them."
So said Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, during a keynote address he gave at the Stigler Center's conference on the political economy of finance that took place in June.
Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community via exclusion.
In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is anger focused on trade? 2. Why now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements?
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present. Today this is no longer true." ...

There's quite a bit more. I don't agree with everything he (Raghuram) says, but thought it might provoke discussion.

DrDick , August 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM

Frankly, "crony capitalism" has always been the primary one, as even Adam Smith noted.
Paine , August 31, 2017 at 11:54 AM
The understanding of exploitation
Of wage earning production workers
Is a better base then the 18 th century liberal ideal of equality

Exploitation and oppression are obviously not the same
even if they make synergistic team mates oftener then not
So long as " them " are blatantly oppressed
It's easy to Forget you are exploited
Unlike oppression
Exploitation can be so stealthy
So not part of the common description of the surface of daily life

Calls for equality must include a careful answer to the question
" equal with who ? "

Unearned equality is not seen as fair to those who wanna believe they earned their status
Add in the obvious :
To be part of a successful movement aimed at Exclusion of some " thems " or other
Is narcotic
Just as fighting exclusion can be a narcotic too for " thems "

But fighting against exclusion coming from among a privileged rank among
The community of would be excluders
That is a bummer
A thankless act of sanctimony
Unless you spiritually join the " thems"

Now what have we got ?

Jim Crow thrived for decades it only ended
When black arms and hands in the field at noon ...by the tens of millions
were no longer necessary to Dixie

Christopher H. , August 31, 2017 at 11:54 AM
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present. Today this is no longer true." ...

I thought this sort of thinking was widely accepted only in 2016 we were told by the center left that no it's not true.

"Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community via exclusion."

Instead the center left is arguing that workers have nothing to complain about and besides they're racist/sexist.

gregory byshenk , September 01, 2017 at 08:54 AM
'"These communities have become disempowered partly for economic reasons but partly also because decision-making has increasingly been centralized toward state governments, national governments, and multilateral [agreements]," said Rajan. In the European Union, he noted, the concentration of decision-making in Brussels has led to a lot of discontent.'

I'd suggest that this part is not true. Communities have become politically disempowered in large part because they have become economically disempowered. A shrinking economy means a shrinking tax base and less funds to do things locally. Even if the local government attempts to rebuild by recruiting other employers, they end up in a race to the bottom with other communities in a similar situation.

I'd also suggest that the largest part of the "discontent" in the EU is not because of any "concentration of decision-making", but because local (and regional, and national) politicians have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for any required, but unpopular action.

[Aug 30, 2017] The goal of wars in the 21st century will not be the seizure of territories, but the subordination of the state apparatus and the formation of a system of external governance of the peoples residing on these territories

Google translate was used for translation with some minor manual corrections... Actually recently quality improved.
Aug 30, 2017 | inosmi.ru

After this decree was published in the Independent Military Review on May 26, it was followed by an extensive program article written by Yuri Baluyevsky, the former chief of the general staff and the current chief assistant to General Zolotov. This is a remarkable document, which unambiguously explains why the Russian leadership decided to create Russian National Guard (Rosgvardia).

General Baluyevsky began his revelation with the statement that "the goal of wars in the 21st century will not be the seizure of territories, but the subordination of the state apparatus and the formation of a system of external governance of the peoples residing on these territories." Then he gloomily remarked that "in the late XX - early XXI centuries more than 30 color revolutions occurred. They brought nothing good to the peoples of those countries that were subjected to monstrous experiments by transatlantic strategists. "

Next Baluevsky pointed out that the Western military planners consider inciting internal non-violent protests on the enemy's territory as a legitimate way of conducting war.

"If this is so," he argues, "it is also necessary to defend ourselves against mass riots in the streets of our cities in terms of war. The coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014, of course, was one of the reasons for the creation of the National Guard troops in Russia ... The appearance of the National Guard troops is a response to the challenge to our society, to the threat of using the so-called non-violent resistance technologies, More accurately it should be called a color revolution technologies."

With amazing straightforwardness, General Baluyevsky said that the ultimate goal of creating Russian National Guard is to suppress [ possibly initiated by foreign interests] internal unrest. "The centuries-old history has proved that Russia can not be conquered by direct foreign army invasion," he says. "The main threats to Russia state sovereignty are probably not outside it, but inside. We must be prepared to prevent threats from within. "

[Aug 29, 2017] More Rice Lies [Just Another Inspector Clouseau]

Notable quotes:
"... Please note the trip down memory lane above, when Susie and Hillary were cohorts at the UN ..."
"... – end update ..."
Aug 29, 2017 | strata-sphere.com

Published by AJStrata under All General Discussions

Please note the trip down memory lane above, when Susie and Hillary were cohorts at the UN .

Major Update : If you don't want to take my word for all this, how about Andrew McCarthy :

The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that.

In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA.

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies.

Basically what these tools have done is confess to the crime. Rice did not deny she did this, she claims she had the authority to do this.

She did not.

Bring on the prosecutors – end update

Susan Rice (and her protectors in the news media – one of which is her husband at ABC News) have been putting out a new trial balloon to see if they can avoid the coming Constitutional crisis over the Obama administration using NSA surveillance data to data-mine their political opposition: a.k.a. Team Trump.

The contortions by which Rice and her news media allies (democrats all) are going through to deflect this smoking gun has hit the absurd :

Rice denied those charges Tuesday, saying she was "shocked" to read the claims when they emerged. She said the White House isn't responsible for ordering that type of surveillance.

She maintained, however, that asking for more information about names included in intelligence reports was a routine and necessary aspect of her job in protecting American security

Uh – no. The White House – which is where she worked when National Security Advisor (please not the emphasis on "Advisor") – cannot investigate US citizens for criminal acts. The White House cannot even direct the FBI who to investigate or not!

Here is her job description :

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) is appointed by the President without confirmation by the Senate . [3] The influence and role of the National Security Advisor varies from administration to administration and depends not only on the qualities of the person appointed to the position but also on the style and management philosophy of the incumbent President. [4] Ideally, the APNSA serves as an honest broker of policy options for the President in the field of national security, rather than as an advocate for his or her own policy agenda. [5]

This role is to assist in drafting policies, strategies, regulations, etc.

So one has to ask, why was she unmasking these innocent people and violating their 4th Amendment Rights? She actually should have no ability to peak into the lives of Americans. None. Not in her job-jar.

The White House is NOT authorized to investigate – not even foreign players. Those authorities are given to a select few organizations in the federal government.

And when it comes to investigating US Citizens, that falls to one and only one federal organization: The FBI.

I know the Democrat News Media is trying to shield Rice and Obama from their bumbling, stumbling activities that will destroy their legacy.

But at least come up with something that passes the laugh test and does not remind us of another overly-clever sleuth protecting the masses:

Tags: National Security Advisor , Obama , Surveillance , Susan Rice , Team Trump

[Aug 29, 2017] Susan Rice, Obamas Dirty Surveillance Rat by AJStrata

Apr 03, 2017 | strata-sphere.com

So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American Citizens 'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:

White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?

As I noted a while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request the unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail of who the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:

For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team Trump, the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:

  1. (U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT, to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request

Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:

C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its approval decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully complies with paragraph A.

OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts involving members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated to review the requests.

Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made by the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Micheal Rogers, who had to review and concur on Rice's request.

Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause to unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and violating their 4th Amendment rights?

Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the hands of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive Trump-Russian connection. The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA on its way to the news media is telling in itself.

Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the article:

In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the logs would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.

Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a nothing-burger and claim this is not the smoking gun.

But of course it's the smoking gun!

Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped off Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her intentions.

For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that would be a general request without a target.

But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only yielded results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That would be political targeting and a felony.

Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would never risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on this news. It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude or criminal intent.

There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious lines. They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since these unmasking processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to, if not over, those Constitutional lines.

Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was she, the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication contenrs? Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!

[Aug 29, 2017] Lurid Trump allegations made by Louise Mensch and co-writer came from hoaxer

Fake new industry is not sleeping ;-) Neocons and neolib stop at nothing trying to sink Trump administration. and especaiiluy anti-globalization and anti-forigh wars parts of his agenda, althouth those parts already by-and-large disappeared. But inertia is way too strong to stop fake news gravy train...
The viciousness of campaign against Trump of sites like msnbc.com and newspapers like NYT is unprecedented. Real neo-McCarthyism in full bloom. They really do not respect the results of election, much like Bolsheviks in Russia.
And leaks, including fake leaks are just integral part of that.
Notable quotes:
"... Mensch denied using the bogus information and said her allegations about Trump's model agency came from her own sources. Asked why she had retweeted Taylor's false posts, Mensch said: "I don't think anybody can vet anybody else's sources." ..."
"... In his emails, Taylor pushed the source for sensational material. Three days after she first contacted him, Taylor asked her: "Is there anything you have heard that's really going to shock people? An 'Oh my god!' sort of thing?" In another message, Taylor conceded that he may have been "going farther than I should" by posting tweets that exaggerated the false tips she was giving him. ..."
"... Thousands of people have reposted the false claims tweeted by Taylor, a former staffer in Bill Clinton's White House. Mensch, a former member of parliament in the UK, retweeted at least 18 posts by Taylor that were based on the hoaxer's false information, spreading them further afield. ..."
Aug 28, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Donald Trump made by online writers with large followings among Trump critics were based on bogus information from a hoaxer who falsely claimed to work in law enforcement.

Claude Taylor tweeted fake details of criminal inquiries into Trump that were invented by a source whose claim to work for the New York attorney general was not checked, according to emails seen by the Guardian. The allegations were endorsed as authentic and retweeted by his co-writer Louise Mensch .

The source's false tips included an allegation, which has been aggressively circulated by Mensch and Taylor, that Trump's inactive fashion model agency is under investigation by New York authorities for possible sex trafficking.

The hoaxer, who fed the information to Taylor by email, said she acted out of frustration over the "dissemination of fake news" by Taylor and Mensch. Their false stories about Trump have included a claim that he was already being replaced as president by Senator Orrin Hatch in a process kept secret from the American public.

"Taylor asked no questions to verify my identity, did no vetting whatsoever, sought no confirmation from a second source – but instead asked leading questions to support his various theories, asking me to verify them," the source said in an email.

After being approached for comment by the Guardian on Monday, Taylor posted what he described as a "mea culpa" on Twitter . "As a 'citizen journalist' I acknowledge my error and do apologize," he wrote.

Mensch denied using the bogus information and said her allegations about Trump's model agency came from her own sources. Asked why she had retweeted Taylor's false posts, Mensch said: "I don't think anybody can vet anybody else's sources."

The source falsely claimed to be an official named "Caitlin" in the office of Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general. She shared details of her hoax on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation from followers of Taylor and Mensch. The Guardian verified her true identity and confirmed that she is not named Caitlin and does not work for Schneiderman.

In his emails, Taylor pushed the source for sensational material. Three days after she first contacted him, Taylor asked her: "Is there anything you have heard that's really going to shock people? An 'Oh my god!' sort of thing?" In another message, Taylor conceded that he may have been "going farther than I should" by posting tweets that exaggerated the false tips she was giving him.

Thousands of people have reposted the false claims tweeted by Taylor, a former staffer in Bill Clinton's White House. Mensch, a former member of parliament in the UK, retweeted at least 18 posts by Taylor that were based on the hoaxer's false information, spreading them further afield.

The pair describe themselves as co-writers and have cultivated a large fanbase among some critics of Trump, many of whom identify as members of the "resistance" movement eager to see the president removed from office. Taylor has about 200,000 followers on Twitter while Mensch has 267,000 followers.

Claiming to report things that the mainstream media will not, they have also moved to collect money from readers. Mensch's website Patribiotics accepts donations "to fund more writers and research". Taylor has said he will soon establish an online fundraising campaign to protect himself from legal threats. A GoFundMe page created by supporters of Taylor has already raised more than $18,000 in his name.

Their reporting has at times entered the mainstream political news agenda. During a television interview earlier this year, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts repeated unverified information about the inquiries into Trump and Russia that he had gleaned from Mensch's website. He later withdrew the comment.

Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman, said in a statement that the incident highlighted the importance of using "legitimate news outlets, which know to verify their sources and their facts".

[Aug 28, 2017] Trump Associate Boasted That Moscow Business Deal 'Will Get Donald Elected'

Another leak, another portion of dirt of Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook , Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter . ..."
Aug 28, 2017 | www.msn.com
The New York Times By MATT APUZZO and MAGGIE HABERMAN 4 hrs ago Mueller team asking if Trump tried to hide purpose of son's meeting © Seth Wenig/AP Police officers help to install concrete barriers around Trump Tower, the home of President-elect Donald Trump, in New York, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016. WASHINGTON -- A business associate of President Trump promised in 2015 to engineer a real estate deal with the aid of the president of Russia , Vladimir V. Putin , that he said would help Mr. Trump win the presidency.

The associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin and predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would highlight Mr. Trump's savvy negotiating skills and be a political boon to his candidacy.

"Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it," Mr. Sater wrote in an email. "I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."

The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump's campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.

American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether anyone on Mr. Trump's team was part of that process.

Mr. Sater, a Russian immigrant, said he had lined up financing for the Trump Tower deal with VTB Bank, a Russian bank that was under American sanctions for involvement in Moscow's efforts to undermine democracy in Ukraine. In another email, Mr. Sater envisioned a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Moscow.

"I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Mr. Sater wrote.

Mr. Sater said he was eager to show video clips to his Russian contacts of instances of Mr. Trump speaking glowingly about Russia.

There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Sater did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.

"To be clear, the Trump Organization has never had any real estate holdings or interests in Russia," the Trump Organization said Monday in a statement.

The Trump Organization on Monday turned over emails to the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election and whether anyone in Mr. Trump's campaign was involved. Some of the emails were obtained by The Times.

None of the emails obtained by The Times include any responses from Mr. Cohen to Mr. Sater's messages.

In a statement on Monday, Mr. Cohen suggested that he viewed Mr. Sater's comments as puffery. "He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to 'salesmanship,'" the statement said. "I ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia."

The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails. Mr. Trump has said there was no collusion with Russian officials. Previously released emails, however, revealed that his campaign was willing to receive damaging information about Mrs. Clinton from Russian sources.

Mr. Sater was a broker for the Trump Organization at the time of his messages to Mr. Cohen, which means he was paid to deliver real estate deals and had an incentive to overstate his business-making acumen. He presents himself in his emails as so influential in Russia that he helped arrange a 2006 trip that Mr. Trump's daughter, Ivanka, took to Moscow.

"I arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putins private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin," he said.

Ms. Trump said she had no involvement in the discussions about the Moscow deal. In a statement, she said that during the 2006 trip, she took "a brief tour of Red Square and the Kremlin" as a tourist. She said it is possible she sat in Mr. Putin's chair during that tour but she did not recall it. "I have never met President Vladimir Putin," she said.

The Times reported earlier this year on the plan for a Trump Tower in Moscow, which never materialized. On Sunday, The Washington Post reported the existence of the correspondence between Mr. Sater and Mr. Cohen but not its content.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook , Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter .

[Aug 28, 2017] Racism if a new rallying cry of anti-Trump coalition

Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Brabantian > , Website August 26, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters

But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well & honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?

Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself but all his family?

As this photo meme suggested

bliss_porsena > , August 26, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

Brawling street-fighting rabbles do not a revolutionary civil war make. You need snipers on rooftops. Every perspective ruler knows that.

Greg Bacon > , Website August 26, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest FEMA Gulag for reeducation NOW! Don't force us to kick down your door at 3 am.

What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:

"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."

Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry. Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.

They advocate for the abolition of gender:

They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:

And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open proponents of communism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/armed-antifa-group-hosts-%E2%80%9Cour-enemies-blue%E2%80%9D-anti-police-workshop

Robert Magill > , August 26, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT

This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world leadership.

The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we exhibit.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

jacques sheete > , August 26, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish racism.

True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world what crazed narcissism looks like.

[Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states>

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire ..."
"... To distill it to an aphorism, "A million guys with one buck, are no match for one guy with a million bucks." ..."
"... Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics. ..."
"... What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common? An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats. ..."
"... Some minorities are more equal than others. The Deep State, for example. ..."
"... It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation via the Republicans. ..."
Aug 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

My thesis is very simple: the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire . That's all there is to it.

I think that minorities often, but not always, act and perceive things in a way very different from the way majority groups do. Here is what I have observed:

Let's first look at minorities inside the US:

They are typically far more aware of their minority identity/status than the majority. That is to say that if the majority is of skin color A and the minority of skin color B, the minority will be much more acutely aware of its skin color. They are typically much more driven and active then the majority. This is probably due to their more acute perception of being a minority. They are only concerned with single-issue politics , that single-issue being, of course, their minority status. Since minorities are often unhappy with their minority-status, they are also often resentful of the majority . Since minorities are mostly preoccupied by their minority-status linked issue, they rarely pay attention to the 'bigger picture' and that, in turn, means that the political agenda of the minorities typically does not threaten the powers that be . Minorities often have a deep-seated inferiority complex towards the putatively more successful majority. Minorities often seek to identify other minorities with which they can ally themselves against the majority.

To this list of characteristics, I would add one which is unique to foreign minorities, minorities outside the US: since they have no/very little prospects of prevailing against the majority, these minorities are very willing to ally themselves with the AngloZionist Empire and that, in turn, often makes them depended on the AngloZionist Empire, often even for their physical survival.

The above are, of course, very general characterizations. Not all minorities display all of these characteristics and many display only a few of them. But regardless of the degree to which any single minority fits this list of characteristics, what is obvious is that minorities are extremely easy to manipulate and that they present no credible (full-spectrum) threat to the Empire.

The US Democratic Party is the perfect example of a party which heavily relies on minority manipulation to maximize its power. While the Republican Party is by and large the party of the White, Anglo, Christian and wealthy voters, the Democrats try to cater to Blacks, women, Leftists, homosexuals, immigrants, retirees, and all others who feel like they are not getting their fair share of the proverbial pie. Needless to say, in reality there is only one party in the US, you can call the the Uniparty, the Republicracts or the Demolicans, but in reality both wings of the Big Money party stand for exactly the same things. What I am looking at here is not at some supposed real differences, but the way the parties present themselves. It is the combined action of these two fundamentally identical parties which guarantees the status quo in US politics which I like to sum up as "more of the same, only worse".

I would like to mention an important corollary of my thesis that minorities are typically more driven than the majority. If we accept that minorities are typically much more driven than most of the population, then we also immediately can see why their influence over society is often out of proportion with the numerical demographical "weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities being more intelligent or more creative and everything to do with them willing to being spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most people.

So we have easy to manipulate, small groups, whose agenda does not threaten the 1% (really, much less!), who like to gang up with other similar minorities against the majority. Getting scared yet? It gets worse.

Western 'democracies' are mostly democracies only in name. In most of them instead of "one man one vote" we see "one dollar one vote" meaning that big money decides, not "the people". Those in real power have immense financial resources which they cynically use to boost the already totally disproportional power of the various minorities. Now this is really scary:

Easy to manipulate, small groups, highly driven, whose agenda does not threaten the ruling plutocracy, who like to gang up with other similar minorities against the majority and whose influence is vastly increased by immense sums of money invested in them by the plutocracy. How is that for a threat to real people power, to the ideals of democracy?!

The frightening truth is that the combination of minorities and big money can easily hijack a supposedly 'democratic' country and subjugate the majority of its population to the "rule of the few over the many".

Once we look this reality in the face we should also become aware of a very rarely mentioned fact: while we are taught that democracies should uphold the right of the minorities, the opposite is true: real democracies should strive to protect majorities against the abuse of power from minorities!

I know, I have just committed a long list of grievous thoughtcrimes!

At those who might be angry at me, I will reply with a single sentence: please name me a western country where the views of the majority of its people are truly represented in the policies of their governments? And if you fail to come up with a good example, then I need to ask you if the majority is clearly not in power, then who is?

I submit that the plutocratic elites which govern the West have played a very simple trick on us all: they managed to focus our attention on the many cases in history when minorities were oppressed by majorities but completely obfuscated the numerous cases whereminorities oppressed majorities.

Speaking of oppression: minorities are far more likely to benefit and, therefore, use violence than the majority simply because their worldview often centers on deeply-held resentments. To put it differently, minorities are much more prone to settling scores for past wrongs (whether real or imagined) than a majority which typically does not even think in minority versus majority categories .

Not that majorities are always benign or kind towards minorities, not at all, humans being pretty much the same everywhere, but by the fact that they are less driven, less resentful and, I would argue, even less aware of their "majority status" they are less likely to act on such categories.

Foreign minorities play a crucial role in US foreign policy. Since time immemorial rulers have been acutely aware of the " divide et impera " rule, there is nothing new here. But the US has become the uncontested leader in the art of using national minorities to create strife and overthrow a disobedient regime. The AngloZionist war against the Serbian nation is the perfect example of how this is done: the US supported any minority against the Serbs, even groups that the US classified as terrorists, as long as this was against the Serbs. And, besides being Orthodox Slavs and traditional allies of Russia, what was the real 'crime' of the Serbs? Being the majority of course! The Serbs had no need of the AngloZionists to prevail against the various ethnic (Croats) and religious (Muslims) minorities they lived with. That made the Serbs useless to the Empire. But now that the US has created a fiction of an independent Kosovo, the Kosovo Albanians put up a statue of Bill Clinton in Prishtina and, more relevantly, allowed the Empire to build the Camp Bondsteel mega-base in the middle of their nasty little statelet, right on the land of the Serbian population that was ethnically cleansed during the Kosovo war. US democracy building at its best indeed

The same goes for Russia (and, the Soviet Union) where the US went as far as to support the right of self-determination for non-existing "captive nations" such as "Idel-Ural" and "Cossakia" . I would even argue that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo (What in the world is a "Belarussian"?!).

I am fully aware that in the typical TV watching westerner any discussion of minorities focusing on their negative potential immediately elicits visions of hammers and sickles, smoking crematoria chimneys, chain gangs, lynchmobs, etc. This is basic and primitive conditioning. Carefully engineered events such as the recent riots in Charlottesville only further reinforce this type of mass conditioning. This is very deliberate and, I would add, very effective. As a result, any criticism, even just perceived criticism, of a minority immediately triggers outraged protests and frantic virtue-signaling (not me! look how good I am!!).

Of course, carefully using minorities is just one of the tactics used by the ruling plutocracy. Another of their favorite tricks is to created conflicts out of nothing or ridiculously bloat the visibility of an altogether minor topic (example: homo-marriages). The main rule remains the same though: create tensions, conflicts, chaos, subvert the current order (whatever that specific order might be), basically have the serfs fight each other while we rule .

In Switzerland an often used expression to describe "the people" is "the sovereign". This is a very accurate description of the status of the people in a real democracy: they are "sovereign" in the sense that nobody rules over them. In that sense, the issue in the United States is one of sovereignty: as of today, the real sovereign of the US are the corporations, the deep state, the Neocons, the plutocracy, the financiers, the Israel Lobby – you name it, anybody BUT the people.

In that system of oppression, minorities play a crucial role, even if they are totally unaware of this and even if, at the end of the day, they don't benefit from it. Their perception or their lack of achievements in no way diminishes the role that they play in the western pseudo-democracies.

How do with deal with this threat?

I think that the solution lies with the minorities themselves: they need to be educated about the techniques which are used to manipulate them, and they need to be convinced that their minority status does not, in reality, oppose them to the majority and that both the majority and the minorities have a common interest in together standing against those who seek to rule over them all. Striving to remain faithful to my "Putin fanboy" reputation, I will say that I believe that Russia under Putin is doing exactly the right thing by giving the numerous Russian minorities a stake in the future of the Russian state and by convincing the minorities that their interests and the interest of the majority of the people are fundamentally the same: being a minority does not have to mean being in opposition to the majority. It is a truism that minorities need to be fully integrated into the fabric of society and yet this is rarely practiced in the real world. This is certainly not what I observe today in Europe or the US.

The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant motto to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement "Equality and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only political movement in France which does not want to favor one group at the expense of the other. Everybody else either wants to oppress the "français de souche" (the native, mostly White and Roman-Catholic majority) on behalf of the "français de branche" (immigrants, naturalized citizens, minorities), or oppress the "français de branche" on behalf of the "français de souche". Needless to say, the only ones who benefit from this clash is the ruling Zionist elite (best represented by the infamous CRIF , which makes the US AIPAC look comparatively honorable and weak). As for Soral, he is vilified by the official French media with no less hate than Trump is vilified in the US by the US Ziomedia.

Still, equality and reconciliation are the two things which the majorities absolutely must offer the minorities if they want to prevent the latter to fall prey to the manipulation techniques used by those forces who want to turn everybody into obedient and clueless serfs. Those majorities who delude themselves and believe that they can simply solve the "minority problem" by expelling or otherwise making these minorities disappear are only kidding themselves. To 'simply' solve the "minority problem' by cracking down on these minorities inevitably

Grandpa Charlie > , August 26, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT

"While we all typically [have] several co-existing identities inside us (say, German, retired, college-educated, female, Buddhist, vegetarian, exile, resident of Brazil, etc. as opposed to just "White"), in manipulated minorities one such identity (skin color, religion, etc.) becomes over-bloated and trumps all the others." -- The Saker

That's a great critique of "identity politics" and one reason why identity politics is self-limiting, maybe even self-destructive (as well as destructive of democracy).

Fran Macadam > , Website August 26, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT

To distill it to an aphorism, "A million guys with one buck, are no match for one guy with a million bucks."

Grandpa Charlie > , August 26, 2017 at 7:13 am GMT

Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics.

It's like an Indian movie I once saw that was constructed as a family history. When the family experienced many setbacks, one after another, until they were all disheartened, the patriarch of the family spoke up, saying, "Remember, we are Bengali!" That was the turning point in the film: after that things began to improve for the family so that the film could have a happy Bolliwood ending.

That was like saying, "Remember, we have a proud history!"

There was also a Yiddish joke that someone told me, like this: There was a young Jewish man in some place like Minsk, somewhere in Eastern Europe, and he saw an advertisement by none other than a great member of the Rothschild banking family. The ad said "Wanted: young Jewish man for difficult and physically challenging assignment." So the hero (or anti-hero?) of this story set out immediately for Paris. Unfortunately, our hero experienced many tragedies, even losing an arm and a leg. But he was determined and he persevered, with the help of a crutch. Finally, he had to camp out in front of the gate of the Rothschild mansion outside of Paris.

Eventually, the great Rothschild had his carriage stop and spoke to the man, saying, "You know, I've seen you standing here day after day what is it that you want?"

Our hero brought out the advertisement that he had carried with him through all his misadventures. The great Rothschild read the advertisement and exclaimed, "What's the matter with you? Did you not read that the job was physically challenging?" To which our hero responded, "Yes, but, Mr. Rothschild, the ad says "young Jewish man."

Being myself a gentile, I did not at first get the joke, but eventually I got a chuckle out of it.

WorkingClass > , August 26, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common? An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats.

Mao Cheng Ji > , August 26, 2017 at 11:17 am GMT

Here's a similar sentiment, by Nassim Taleb: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 26, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT

I also lived for 5 years in Washington, DC, which was something like 70% Black and, at the time, openly and often rudely hostile to Whites (I never thought of myself as a color before, but I sure felt like one during those 5 years). And now I am a "legal alien" living in the US. Anyway, while I am "White" (what a nonsensical category!)

Nonsensical? Really? Both the DC blacks and their DC (((paymasters))) hate your "category" but you're still confused and want to hold hands and educate them ? Do you have children?

The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant motto to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement "Equality and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only political movement in France which does not want to favor one group at the expense of the other.

Demographically speaking, the native French group ( white category FYI) is already doomed to lose their homeland unless they reverse the invasion and punish the plotters. Reconciling with their invaders would be assisted suicide, surely. Almost as bad as the forced miscegenation idea proposed by Nicolas "Jew Midget" Sarkozy a few years back.

You need to wake up and check for any vitamin/mineral deficiencies you might have, Saker. Our ancestors butchered countless invaders to give us the land we're standing on – they didn't reconcile it away.

Bartolo > , August 26, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

Excellent diagnosis, ridiculous therapy.

One single question shows how profoundly silly The Saker's his "solution" is:

Why would it be easier to convince resentful, envious minorities to just get along with the majority than to convince the elites to act better, according to the noblesse oblige principle?

Elites will always misuse their power. Minorities/majorities will always quarrel and resent each other.

Give us (back) ethnically homogeneous states instead. No panacea, but the besf we can hope for.

Cyrano > , August 26, 2017 at 7:52 pm GMT

The ruling elites of US (both democrats and republicans) can be divided into 2 categories:
1. The ones who think that they are better because of their race.
2. The ones who think that they are better because they were able to overcome the feeling of being better because of their race. In other words – the morally superior ubermensch instead of racially superior ubermensch.

In reality, category 2 doesn't exist (at least not among the ruling elites) – they are all liars. They haven't been able to overcome any feeling of superiority, they just added another one – the one of moral superiority. Actually, the ruling elites for the most part are still category 1, only pretending to be category 2. Not only do they feel they are superior to other races, they feel they are superior to their own race – the poorer members of it.

The ruling elites are manipulating the population of US into declaring that they belong in either one of these 2 camps. Result: Charlottesville riots.

RDM10005 > , August 26, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT

I already wrote about that here http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/08/29/deep-state-plutocrat-elite-use-protected-classes-to-do-their-dirty-work/ 2 years ago and published last year. This is old hat and old news.

Issac > , August 26, 2017 at 8:54 pm GMT

This post would sound eminently reasonable if the white identitarians had any kind of state blessing, but they are a de facto criminal element being suppressed. Not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of the elite who are Jewish, not Zionist, and not very Anglo.

White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white leadership were transparently in control over the state. The wellspring of their support comes from the fact that what whites do exist in the power structure are absolutely and transparently subservient to other interests.

Ricard > , August 27, 2017 at 4:50 am GMT

While we all typically several co-existing identities inside us

Spot the missing verb.

Alden > , August 27, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

@Fran Macadam Here is the mantra of political fund raisers. " it's easier to get one donor to give $1,000 than to get 20 donors to give $50 apiece."

jocose > , August 27, 2017 at 5:02 am GMT

One of the problems is that the US was (and still is) a republic-with a small r. The republican form of government assumes that the voters are too stupid or ignorant to pass laws, so they have to hire professional political types to write their governing laws for them. The politicos are easy targets for the powers that be to manipulate, evidently.

Beckow > , August 27, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

The problem is – as always – with the numbers. The large influx of migrants is changing the demographics and that changes the goals and behaviour of each group. The minority groups can see the promised land in the future when they will take over. The majority knows that they cannot stop it by "equality and reconciliation" (whatever that would mean in practise, maybe endless workshops to whine about each other?).

The numbers game has gone too far and there is no easy way to restore stability. E.g. the labor markets in the West cannot be fixed without drastic restrictions on supply of new labor from the Third World. The article has some valuable insights, but the lame 'solution' it suggests is useless.

Another issue not addressed is that many minorities are a majority in their regions leading to a geographic instability by putting borders in question. That separation actually makes sense in many cases.

What we have had for some time are the elites behaving badly, they have stopped being responsible and thoughtful. The best solution I can see would be for the elites to sober up and start taking their role seriously again. Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos. Those are the wages of the baby boomer idiocy.

jilles dykstra > , August 27, 2017 at 6:48 am GMT

Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger. At the last French elections the political elite did anything possible to prevent Front National getting legal political power. With fifteen % of the votes, of those who bothered to vote, some 44%, Macron got an absolute majority in French parliament, some 360 seats. FN six or so. Yet, alas, anyone knows he won the elections, but not the streets.

As his popularity goes down, Sun King habits, the strikes announced for 11 and 12 September will show who really is in power in France.

bliss_porsena > , August 27, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT

Some minorities are more equal than others. The Deep State, for example.

unpc downunder > , August 27, 2017 at 7:11 am GMT

If you want to lesson the influence of minorities in western democracies, then its essential to provide a more a la carte form of democracy that is less open to elite manipulation. Options include getting rid of political parties and voting directly for heads of government departments, or allowing voters to vote on which party gets to run each of the key government departments.

It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation via the Republicans.

There is no way around this problem without radically changing the political system.

Jason Liu > , August 27, 2017 at 8:01 am GMT

Easier said than done. Most minorities would support anti-majority politics even IF they knew they were being manipulated. You severely underestimate the human attraction to tribalism.

A more plausible plan would be to turn minorities against so-called 'AngloZionist' values, which is already partially complete, since minorities are rarely Anglos and therefore don't subscribe to their values as much. Have a look at any SJW gathering. Always disproportionately white, even in very diverse cities. It's much easier to convince even longtime resident minorities like blacks that things like transgenderism is bullshit, than it is to convince emotionally committed whites.

This would result in a country that allows multiple competing tribalisms, but none of which would be very useful as pawns by the elites. Not as good as homogeneity, but better than the current situation.

"Everybody gang up against the WEIRDs" is a nice thought and I would love to see it, but it's just not very likely.

peterAUS > , August 27, 2017 at 8:12 am GMT

There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:

Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being manipulated
Offer the minorities a future based on equality and reconciliation
Put the spotlight on those who fan the flames of conflict and try to turn minorities and majorities against each other

Surprisingly weak and naive.

A simple question:
What's wrong with Serb approach in Kosovo before Western intervention?
Spare me "virtue signalling" .. if you can.

I think it would've worked if West hadn't stepped up with overwhelming FORCE.
It worked in "Operation Storm". Serbs as victims but that's precisely the point.
Perfect example how it CAN work.

So .following the same logic ..if IF .West used the same approach why it wouldn't work?
Say .French government does exactly the same as Croats did with Serbs in Croatia or Serbs with Albanians/whatever in Kosovo.

Just curious.

Anyone?

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

Excellent piece.

There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:

Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being manipulated

While those ideas have merit, I predict they'll be impossible to implement. Education is an active process and one cannot "be" educated in the passive sense. People, like other creatures, can be schooled and trained, but that's not the same as acquiring an education.

There are several reasons why the majority will never acquire any meaningful education. Most people simply do not possess the requisite curiosity to begin any sort of educational process and would rather make decisions based on immediate emotions. A true education requires active questioning of the standing myths and myths are evidently too comfortable for most to discard or even doubt. Most folks appear too lazy and or too timid to face the hard truths and would rather follow the dictates of some slick Peruna peddler.

A shocking percentage of people apparently love the feeling of "superiority" of "knowing" something even if their belief is utter, easily discardable, hogwash and actively reject any challenges to it. For example, the mindless charge of "conspiracy theorist" is used to dismiss, without thinking, anything but the spoon fed drivel they see on teevee.

I could go on, but this is already too long and is mostly preaching to the choir.

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

The working class wants work and wages.

Which is a key reason that things are not likely to improve for at least a few more millennia. Accepting wages is a form of slavery, and most folks simply cannot see beyond that trap. The system has evolved so that people readily accept the idea of wages as a necessity (along with the extortion and theft known as taxes). There's a huge difference between making (earning) a living and holding a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince anyone of that.

Tolstoy wrote about the concept of wage slavery over a century ago and it makes good reading to this day.

"But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of [chattel] slavery was only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary, and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds a greater number of people in bondage."

- Leo Tolstoy

A few typos, but otherwise a fine summary: Tolstoy, Slavery of Our Times, Chap 8, 11 July, 1900 http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/WorldeBookLibrary.com/slaverytol.htm#1_0_7

The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats.

All true, except the part about solidarity, which would definitely be a huge step in the right direction for us proles and peasants, but is probably as unobtainable as true education of the masses.

As I see it, the best an individual can do is to toss a monkey wrench into the system whenever we can get away with it, but that requires an understanding of who are enemies are and that seems nearly impossible to achieve. Thus it's effective only in theory. In practice, it's probably as ephemeral as a gas emission in a tornado.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 27, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

@Beckow

Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos.

Chaos is on the march.

It appears the minority has magically organized itself and planned a 10-day march from Charlottesville to DC, there to demand the impeachment/removal of Donald Trump, and to carry on a non-violent occupation (irony alert).

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/348136-ten-day-march-from-charlottesville-to-dc-to-start-monday

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 27, 2017 at 12:35 pm GMT

@unpc downunder

then its essential to provide a more a la carte form of democracy that is less open to elite manipulation.

you mean something like state's sovereignty, which is what Robert E Lee stood for?

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 12:35 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.

An even bigger threat is the manipulat ing minorities aka certain (most?) elements of the money bag crowd.

This problem has been recognized for millennia and was discussed in detail by many early Americans who nevertheless argued in favor of a constitution and a centralized bureaucracy that favored the rich.

Virtue cannot dwell with wealth either in a city or in a house.

-Diogenes of Sinope, quoted by Stobaeus, iv. 31c. 88

But if you will take note of the mode of proceedings of men, you will see that all those who come to great riches and great power have obtained them either by fraud or by force; and afterwards, to hide the ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the false title of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence.

- Niccolo Machiavelli , HISTORY OF FLORENCE AND OF THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY, Book 3 chap 3Para 8

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2464/2464-h/2464-h.htm#link2H_4_0022

" wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence."

THOMAS PAINE, DISSERTATION ON FIRST-PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, 1795

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004809392.0001.000/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Robert Magill > , August 27, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

AfroAmericans who are descended from slaves should take into account the fact that their ancestors were protected because they had value. As a result they now number some 42 million and produced the last President. Comparison with the indigenous natives who after centuries of genocide number about 2 million and are mostly on reservations should give pause.

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/issues-seen-and-not-seen/

War for Blair Mountain > , August 27, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT

Dear Saker

Nonwhites within the borders of the US are not innocent bystanders They are enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority into a violently persecuted racial minority within the borders of America..

If you have a greater identification with Muslim "Americans" and Hindu "Americans" than European American Natives then just go back to Russia..and take the Hindus and Muslims with you.

It wasn't very nice of you not to let my comment go through yesterday in response to commenter Eric .on The Vineyard of the Saker

You are waging demographic warfare against my Racial Tribe .

Intelligent Dasein > , Website August 27, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

@Robert Magill Barack Obama was not the descendant of any African slaves, you idiot.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 27, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

@WorkingClass The Chinese in California are Chinese Race Nationalist The Hindus in California are Hindu Race Nationalists You are a Civic Nationalist Cuck.

Michael Kenny > , August 27, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

Using minorities as an excuse to oppress majorities is a classic colonial technique. The British set themselves up as the "protectors" of the Muslims in India, the Turks in Cyprus and the Protestants in Ireland, for example. Putin justifies his actions in Ukraine by claiming that he is "protecting" the ethnic Russian minority from the dastardly ethnic Ukrainian majority. Ditto for the various cyber-attacks on Estonia. One assumes that the same treatment would be meted out to the Belarusians if they dared to assert their national sovereignty. The US captive nations legislation the author refers to includes Belarus (designated "White Ruthenia"), Ukraine and the three Baltic republics. I am unaware of any alliance ever having existed, or existing today, between Serbia and Russia. Like "Eurasia", that "alliance" seems to have been invented by US neocons when they were trying to use Putin as an "asset".

War for Blair Mountain > , August 27, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

Saker

Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted The Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into a racial minority?

Anon > , Disclaimer August 27, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

"Manipulated minorities represent a major danger to democratic states."

Well, yes. But the manipulation of minorities to change legal frameworks or disassemble governments has been ongoing since the French Revolution. 'They' first foster a sense of oppression, more or less justified, then move to grant the new rights. Monarchies suffered the strategy. Europe should know the drill, witness the received oral tradition "Czechoslovaquia is another spelling for Rothschild."

Breaking up the US along racial lines is exactly what 'they' want. They want the fighting "whites" to come out, give the reason for changes in law. The Trump impeachment is deliberate provocation.

There has never been a 'white nation', it is a silly, ahistorical idea. Nations are built around culture. Fight for the culture. Use the damn high IQ.

Intelligent Dasein > , Website August 27, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

I am unaware of any alliance ever having existed, or existing today, between Serbia and Russia.

There was a little tiff called World War One. It was in a couple of papers.

Arithtoddle > , August 27, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

@Issac "White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white leadership were transparently in control over the state."

Nope, but thanks for playing. White nationalism would have zero credibility if the leadership actually promoted American–WASP–interests. There is no escaping the Posterity clause, period. There is no magic dirt, no civic nationalism, no immersion in American culture, that can replace descendants of the English colonists that understand the importance of the Rights of Englishmen. The US was never intended to be the world's largest rest stop for every poor downtrodden person on Earth. Minorities now all undocumented immigrants since 1965 (Hart-Cellar).

Homogeneous nation's are born from Heterogeneous nation's. We are witnesses to the birth pains. The length of the labor depends on how long the majority will tolerate the minorities. Reconciliation isn't just impossible–its not even on the table, unless you reverse time. They. Have. To. Go. Back.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 27, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

@Anon Well..you are wrong about that..America since it's inception has always been a White Nation If you don't believe me..just ask Professor Noel Ignatieve-the Father of White Studies. Where I differ from Professor Noel Ignatieve:I think it's GREAT that America has historically been a White Nation as did Socialist Labor Leader Samuel Gompers.

As far as your last two sentences go:Bring back the 1888 Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!!

Saker

The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc is the Voting Bloc for War on Christian Russia not Trump's Whitey Racist Voting Bloc..

Wally > , August 27, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Well stated.

And of course, what 'education' would these minorities be given?

Take a look at what is given them now in our systems.
Absolute lies about, and hatred of, white gentiles.

Then there is the simple fact of minorities low IQs.
What, we think we're going to train dumb Africans to be engineers?

By and large these people are unemployable in a modern society.

The entire matter of somehow 'educating' these people in the true sense of the word is laughable.
Just look at the countries they come from.

Francis G. > , August 27, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

@Intelligent Dasein Damned right. If anything, he is the descendant of African slave traders . But his skin is sort of black and he's got a funky name, so he can pass as one of the "oppressed" minorities.

WorkingClass > , August 27, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

@jacques sheete 1 Timothy 5:18 ESV /
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable. But with what will you replace them?

There's a huge difference between making (earning) a living and holding a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince anyone of that.

Try me.

I was a union man back in the day when private sector unions were active and had support in Washington. We had a contractual relationship with employers that was qualitatively different from serfdom or chattel slavery and a huge improvement over the wage slavery that prevailed before the American labor movement.

As ideologies go the Anarchists have the best of it. But even they are Utopians. Capitalism sux. There will never be a free market utopia. But neither will there be a workers paradise. Human beings are limited in what they can accomplish by human nature. That's the law. I'm only interested in what works in the real world, however imperfectly.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

Who said this:

Nature does not know political frontiers. She first puts the living beings on this globe and watches the free game of energies. He who is strongest in courage and industry receives, as her favorite child, the right to be the master of existence.

If a people limits itself to domestic colonization, at a time when other races cling to greater and greater surfaces of the earth's soil, it will be forced to exercise self-restriction even while other nations will continue to increase.

For some day this case will occur, and it will arrive the earlier the smaller the living space is that a people has at its disposal. As, unfortunately only too frequently, the best nations, or, better still, the really unique cultured races, the pillars of all human progress, in their pacifistic blindness decide to renounce the acquisition of new soil in order to content themselves with 'domestic* colonization, while
inferior nations know full well how to secure enormous areas on this earth for themselves, this would lead to the following result:

The culturally superior, but less ruthless, races would have to limit, in consequence of their limited soil, their increase even at a time when the culturally inferior, but more brutal and more natural, people, in consequence of their greater living areas, would be able to increase themselves without limit.

In other words: the world will, therefore, some day come into the hands of a mankind that is
inferior in culture but superior in energy and activity.

For then there will be only two possibilities in the no matter how distant future: either the world will be ruled according to the ideas of our modern democracy, and then the stress of every decision falls on the races which are stronger in numbers, or the world will be dominated according to the law of the natural order of energy, and then the people of brute strength will be victorious, and again, therefore, not the nations of self-restriction.

But one may well believe that this world will still be subject to the fiercest fights for the existence of mankind.
In the end, only the urge for self-preservation will eternally succeed. Under its pressure so-called 'humanity,' as the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and an imaginary superior intelligence, will melt like snow under the March sun. Mankind has grown strong in eternal
struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.

Hint: today in an appearance on an internationally broadcast program, a minion from Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD) dismissed as "conspiracy theory" the suggestion that the USA/(Trump admin) is involved in Afghanistan "because Afghanistan has vast lithium resources, which US needs for new technologies" [see this 2010 report, Read More

Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
yeah > , August 27, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

Minorities are nothing but trouble, even though political correctness demands that we not see that or dare to say so. History offers not a single – NOT ONE SINGLE – example of harmony and mutual love between the minorities and the majority in any community/country/nation. Prove me wrong, cite one significant exception.

Don't cite Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans in the American melting pot. They came with full intent to be melted, they came white, Christian, and western in outlook and culture. They came pre-cooked for the melting pot. Can't say the same for the Muslims streaming in today. Nor for the Hindus and the Orientals coming in today. Leaving aside the Muslims (not even worth discussing in any talk of assimilation), the Hindus and Orientals today stand aside and apart, both groups highly conscious of their groups' share in the American pie. The Hispanics will make Spanish the lingua Franca – already largely done in California. So what exactly can the melting of Spanish and English languages produce? Spanglish? No, it will be one or the other, depending on which group acquires demographic majority and sufficient political clout. Who will melt whom?

WorkingClass > , August 27, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam Unless a million guys are organized.

Cloak And Dagger > , August 27, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain

Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted The Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into a racial minority?

Please elaborate on what you mean. I definitely do not see myself as a racial minority in California.

Art > , August 27, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

Manipulated Minorities Represent a Major Danger for Democratic States

The solution is an easy one – we must abandon the Jew Matrix of identity politics and return to the Christian Matrix of neighborliness.

Jew thought is about biological identity, and all the fear and hate associated with it – the Christian philosophical mindset is an intellectual entreaty to "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Hmm – one favors gonad driven actions – the other using our brains to overcome our biology, and make peace and abundance.

The differences are stark and profound – we can see what the Jew way has brought us – Jew tribalism is killing America and the West.

If we want a just kind world we cannot abandon philosophical Christianity.

Philosophical Christianity is not about "the virgin birth" and "the ascension into heaven" – it is about a practical way to peaceably live with each other and build an abundance for all.

Think Peace -- Art

nsa > , August 27, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

@Cloak And Dagger Non-Hispanic white is now down to 37.7% of the California population as of 2016 according to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts ..probably less if you include all the uncounted illegals.

Ivy > , August 27, 2017 at 7:22 pm GMT

@nsa Will the increased supply of labor result in lower gardening bills? Or take-out food bills?

Logan > , August 27, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT

"I would even argue that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo (What in the world is a "Belarussian"?!)."

Hey, us Anglo-Zionists didn't create Belarus. That was an indigenous or possibly German puppet state created (sort of) in early 1918. It was then conquered by the Bolsheviks and reborn as the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, a constituent republic of the USSR till it fell apart, at which point it became (sort of) independent.

The Anglo-Zionists had nothing to do with any of this, with probable exception of the collapse of the USSR.

Logan > , August 27, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Since you consider "working for wages" as not "making a living," I'm curious what you would consider to constitute "making a living."

Yeoman farmer?

Small businessman?

Bank robber?

Logan > , August 27, 2017 at 7:37 pm GMT

@Intelligent Dasein Actually, if we go back a dozen or two generations, it's probable most people on the planet are descended from both slaveowners and slaves. Especially if you're a little loose with the definition of slave.

Logan > , August 27, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Bragadocious If we had ever made a serious consistent effort to kill all the Indians, they'd be gone. But there seem to be quite a few of them still around. About 5M, in fact, considerably more than lived in the boundaries of the USA in 1491.

Argentina had similar Indian problems during the same time period (late 19th century) we were fighting our final Indian wars. But they had a different approach: extermination.

Quite successful at it, too. Very few Indians left in Argentina. And they didn't import any other minorities, which means Argentina is now upwards of 90% "white." Much more so than USA, in fact.

Miro23 > , August 27, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT

If we accept that minorities are typically much more driven than most of the population, then we also immediately can see why their influence over society is often out of proportion with the numerical demographical "weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities being more intelligent or more creative and everything to do with them willing to being spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most people.

It's true that there is greater activism, but the key ingredient is probably ethnic patronage.

A.H. gave an (approving) explanation of how it works:

"In the old Austria, nothing could be done without patronage. That's partly explained by the fact that nine million Germans were in fact rulers, in virtue of an unwritten law, of fifty million non-Germans. This German ruling class took strict care that places should always be found for Germans. For them this was the only method of maintaining themselves in this privileged situation. The Balts of German origin behaved in the same way towards the Slav population."

Hitler's Table Talk. Conversation Nş 109, 15th-16th January 1942

American Jewry has been following the same policy since the early 1900′s, pushing for Jewish candidates in key placings, who if successful, are expected to return the favour. On a "level playing field" this has a ratchet effect whereby corporate management and key media, finance and government positions can be gradually taken over with Anglos squeezed out in a rather unobvious way ("He wasn't the right candidate for reasons A,B,C X,Y,Z").

prusmc > , August 27, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Jacquez:

Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years. I believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education. How has it worked? What does the US Census data show for the indicator median education level persons over 25 years of age in 1960 demonstrate when compared to 2010? Compare for both white and black. Wow! we all are much smarter. Okay, as Rodney King so aptly stated it "why can' t everbody just get along?"

Tradecraft46 > , August 27, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT

Better still, they are making more enemies than they can put to any good use.

In that world, enemies validate, in the real world, it invites total destruction.

None of them, being religious and all, never count the costs, which Jesus suggested.

Lawrence Fitton > , August 27, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Wally okay wally, i'm only going to say this once, so please pay attention. the gas chambers were but one method by which jews were killed. starvation, disease, forced labor, firing squads, killed legions. what if it was only 4 million jews who perished in the camps? or 3? does that make it better.
one last thing: elie wiesel is not the wonderful man he is purported to be.

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable. But with what will you replace them?

Dear Sir, as I've often stated, I like what you have to say and agree with 99% of it. I also respect the fact that your reply to me was obviously respectful and sincere.

My usual answer to your question is to replace them with nothing. For example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it; I'd rather do without. Instead of wages and a time clock, I advocate finding other (hopefully respectable) sources of income.

I realize that in this environment, it's nearly impossible to do without wages, but that shows how much our system sux, hence my objection to them and the system. I pretty much became disgusted with the concept after working at a few jobs that were really akin to slavery or some other unsavory paid profession, so I worked to make a living without punching time clock. That's not to say that I did not receive money for my services, but I managed to do without a direct boss during my earning days. Several other rather cantankerous members of my family manged to do the same, and some still do. I'm not saying that to brag, but to point out that it can be done.

I do admit that it now seems nearly impossible to do that sort of thing, but a close neighbor, in his thirty's, manages to do that and does quite well. He does have the advantage of both a good work ethic and access to a family business though.

The bottom line for me is that it's too bad that we have to submit to bosses for the most part to earn a living. From that we seem to learn to submit to other forms of "authority" with little or no questioning, and it seems to be a downhill slide from there. Also, the more power the bosses get, they more they control, and the less chance there is for people to become independent. that's no way to live.

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

@Logan

Since you consider "working for wages" as not "making a living,"

That is a false statement. It is both illogical and unreasonable based on what I actually said.

Working for wages in one of several ways of earning a living. It just happens to be, in my way of thinking, one of the least desirable for many reasons.

I'm curious what you would consider to constitute "making a living."

Yeoman farmer?

Small businessman?

Bank robber?

All of the above, and many more.

Skeptikal > , August 27, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT

@Logan Belorusian.
One r.

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 9:14 pm GMT

@prusmc

Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years. I believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education.

Most folks are entirely ineducable and seem to like it that way. Of course, it's a fine sounding pretext for mass brainwashing and it's attendant bureaucracy and source of profits.

How has it worked?

It's probably worked just as intended but not at all as advertised!

See John Taylor Gatto and Upton Sinclair's "The Goslings" and the Goosestep" which basically describe schooling in America as a tool for corporations.

Tim Howells > , August 27, 2017 at 9:23 pm GMT

@Lawrence Fitton

what if it was only 4 million jews who perished in the camps? or 3? does that make it better?

Well, in several countries you can go to jail, and many have, for saying it was less than 6, so go figure. Norman Finkelstein was destroyed by the "Holocaust Industry" for showing in the simplest terms that if you add up the numbers of supposed "victims" and "survivors", the official figures are patently absurd. The more you dig, the more absurd it gets.

attilathehen > , August 27, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT

The Saker: You are not a "minority." You are a Caucasian, the European branch, ethnically Russian. You are Christian, specifically Orthodox. You are one of the interesting groups that make up the Caucasian peoples. You have nothing in common with blacks/Asians.

The Democratic party is the party of nonwhites, non-Christians, sexual degenerates. Manipulation has nothing to do with this. Minorities know they are inferiors. What they are doing is because they realize they can never accomplish what Caucasians/Europeans/ Christians/neopagans have accomplished. This means it is time for separation/deportation/repatriation.

This is coming. An RCC priest "confessed" to having been in the KKK when he was a teenager. The US Conference of Bishops has established an ad hoc committee to address racism. This is the final nail in the coffin of the RCC. Homosexuals have taken over the priesthood. Priests do not preach about hell, sin, repentance. Now that this KKK priest has been exposed, from now on sermons will only cover "racism," the worst sin.

Caucasian Christans/pagans have to deal with the reality that world history can be summed up in two words: IQ, which is tied to race. The past 2000 years of Western civilization united under the RCC are gone. There has to be a new paradigm shift to deal with the future and what needs to be done.

Delinquent Snail > , August 27, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT

@anonymous I hope they act like they have at every event they have been a part of and the president acts accordingly. Trump needs to hire people to record the whole thing and put it all up on a new website thats created just to host the event. Dozens of live feeds from dozens of angles. All put up on this new website just so there will be no confusion. Once the left riots, because they will riot, National guard needs to be called and these domestic terrorists need to be put down. He then needs to put out an executive order to shut down all propaganda news agencies that are spinning this, and if people want to see what happened, view the live feeds from dozens of angles on the newly created website. And if people bitch about how its wrong to have this up, fuck them. Its time to take off the kiddy gloves.

Mulegino1 > , August 27, 2017 at 10:24 pm GMT

@Tim Howells It was more like around 300,000 in all of the German camps since their inception back in the mid-1930′s, according to the International Red Cross. And that refers to all camp inmates of all ethnic backgrounds.

It is entirely possible that many Jews may have been killed on the Eastern Front or in the Soviet Union, but that can hardly be blamed solely upon the Germans, who were not known to be savagely cruel or vengeful- even though the anti-partisan actions may have led to some excesses.

In any case, there is zero evidence for "millions of Jews" killed by the Germans. There are no mass graves commensurate with such figures, nor is there any documentary evidence of a deliberate plan of "extermination."

WorkingClass > , August 27, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT

@jacques sheete I understand you quite well I think. I have worked on commission. I have been self employed. For a time I was a soldier. I have worked for wages for mom and pop business and for large corporations and held both union and non union jobs. I did a few years working for a not for profit homeless shelter. I am a Jack of all trades and (unfortunately) master of none.

On union jobs (IBEW and Teamsters) I had the great benefit of having a contract with my employer that spelled out the duties and privileges of both the worker and the company. This meant that both labor and management worked from the same set of rules. The path to promotion was defined as was the possible cause for termination. Personalities had nothing to do with anything. The boss and I followed the same rules. It was nothing like being subject to the whims and prejudices of one man.

" For example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it; I'd rather do without."

Having a "job" can be worse than the gleet.
Unfortunately a mans gotta eat.

Thanks for coming back.

nsa > , August 27, 2017 at 10:29 pm GMT

@Ivy The white trash (as of 2016, down to 37.7% of California's population) has simply been replaced by brown trash in California. The only question remaining is which ethnic elite will run the state ..the jooies or the chinkies or the hindus. Or will the ethnics simply rule via a de facto coalition? Whitey's demise in CA is an accomplished fact ..with AZ and TX soon to follow and eventually OR, WA, ID, and CO. The efforts of James K. Polk are soon to be fully reversed. And yes, Ivy, you will have employment ..every Chinese has been promised a white house boy and white concubine by 2050.

Ivy > , August 27, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT

@nsa I'll be long dead by 2050 but will miss those Chinese masseuses.

Cloak And Dagger > , August 27, 2017 at 10:51 pm GMT

@Lawrence Fitton

the gas chambers were but one method by which jews were killed

There is much contention as to whether even a single jew was killed in a gas chamber. Asserting that statement can land you in jail in much of Europe.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 27, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT

@Logan Chaim Weizmann, who obtained the Balfour Declaration from the British, and went on to become first president of Israel, hailed from Belarus.

hunor > , August 27, 2017 at 11:22 pm GMT

the same tolerant technology has been applied five thousand years ago in the Sumerian civilization
what was a non semitic composed society. Few hundred years prior to the destruction of that culture
semitic tribes were allowed to settle in, first in smaller numbers , then in the name of tolerance larger migrating groups were allowed , and enjoyed benefits of education, comfortable, cultured living. The original majority of the population were builders and workers , the migrants for the most part were users, who's interest were to find an easy way to become the more. The complete opposite of mentality. In time the semitic migrants were able to build up a fifth column , moved in to powerful positions such as religion and astrology , and from then on destruction has begun. The original populous were pushed out, part of them were forcefully crossbred , the rest of them flee and
build new countries in Europa . The migrants of that time gained written culture , tailored clothing ,
the benefit of toilet so not to go to the bushes to relieve themselves . This time around there is no place left to flee.

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT

@WorkingClass I, too, think I understand from whence you come.

I agree with the concept of labor unions but recognize that they too can be turned against the interests of the workers, and unfortunately, have been.

I do applaud you for your success working within the system and I have no doubt that you did it as a sincere, able and good man. I also respect your views and thank you for sharing them.

As for bosses, I loathe them so much that I myself never hired employees because I didn't want to be a boss any more than I wanted to answer to one. I almost get physically sick when I see that the window of opportunity for youngsters to follow a independent lifestyle is next to nil and getting tougher all the time.

I do still counsel my younger relatives to acquire as much experience as they can so that they are in a position to have some control over their own lives. I'm also actively involved in fortifying my grandkids with both defiance and the attitudes and skills to back it up.

Is that attitude Utopian? No doubt to some degree it is, but so is the attitude of submission, i.e., the wish for everything to be taken care of so long as one submits.

jacques sheete > , August 27, 2017 at 11:34 pm GMT

@Cloak And Dagger

There is much contention as to whether even a single jew was killed in a gas chamber.

Not only is there much contention, but there is no credible evidence that it really happened. Besides, the numbers are farcical.

Where do they get 6 million?

"Allowing for a maximum of 100,000 who succeeded in emigrating from Europe, this would bring the total number of Jews under the direct rule of Nazi Germany to about 3,200,000."

Distribution of the Jewish Population of Europe 1933-. 1940," prepared by Mr. Moses Moskowitz
AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK 1941-1942, page 662

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1941_1942_9_Statistics.pdf

I haven't checked in a while, but I wonder if the link is still active

Jake > , August 27, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT

"I submit that the real truth is totally different. My thesis is very simple: the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire. That's all there is to it."

That is pretty much it, save for the origins. WASP culture's Germanic basis began by hating the native British Isles. That set the pattern:WASPs most hate those from whom they steal or otherwise wrong gravely. The Reformation provided the perfect theological and philosophical justifications for that pattern to become something much greater.

The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were Judaizing heretics. You cannot over-emphasize that point. WASAP culture from the moment it was crystalized, truly formed, was one that saw the world through Jewish-influenced, Jewish-fawning, eyes. Naturally and inevitably, once the true WASPs gained total control of the government, with the Puritan Revolution, their fearless leader, Oliver Cromwell, allied with Jews. He took Jewish money to wage war, to exterminate cultures and make at least virtual serfs of whole populations.

White Christian populations.

WASP culture began with an alliance with Jews, allowing Jews back into England, with special rights and privileges that the vast majority of British Isles native Christians did not have, that allowed the WASPs to continue waging war to exterminate white Christian cultures.

When WASPs encountered non-whites, they began to grasp the value of using them – non-whites and non-Christians – as tools and weapons with which to batter the white Christians they wished to destroy.

That is the reason the 'Anglo-Zionist Empire' uses minorities as it does.

You cannot separate the Jewish Problem from the WASP Problem. You cannot solve the Jewish Problem without solving the 'WASP Problem.

[Aug 27, 2017] The War That Time Forgot by Jeffrey St. Clair

Notable quotes:
"... From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops, more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war since the late 1970s. ..."
"... Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we are ..."
"... Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. ..."
"... Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in 2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must be punished. Eternally, it seems. ..."
"... Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1 trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration. ..."
"... If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Forget marijuana, the real gateway to heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom. ..."
"... What I'm reading this week ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

If it's Independence Day, then you can count on John McCain to be bunkered down in a remote outpost of the Empire growling for the Pentagon to unleash airstrikes on some unruly nation, tribe or gang. This July the Fourth found McCain making a return engagement to Kabul, an arrival that must have prompted many Afghans to scramble for the nearest air raid shelter.

From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops, more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war since the late 1970s.

McCain's martial drool is now as familiar as the opening notes to the "Law & Order" theme song. What may surprise some, however, is the composition of the delegation that signed up to travel on his frequent flier program, notably the presence of two Democratic Senators with soaring profiles: Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren. Whitehouse, the former prosecutor (aren't they all?) from Rhode Island, has lately taken a star turn in the role of chief inquisitor of suspected Russian witches in the Senate intelligence committee hearings. Perhaps he finally located one selling AK-47s to the Taliban to replace the guns they'd gotten from the CIA (We now know that it's the Saudis –not the Russians–who have been covertly funneling money to the Taliban, though don't expect the Trump to impose any sanctions on the Kingdom of the Head-choppers.)

For her part, Warren largely echoed McCain's bellicose banter that Trump needs to double down militarily to finish off the Taliban, the impossible dream. No real surprise here. To the extent that she's advanced any foreign policy positions during her stint in the senate, Warren has been a dutiful supplicant to the demands of AIPAC and the Council on Foreign Relations, rarely diverging from the neocon playbook for the global war on Islam. Warren's Afghan junket is a sure sign of her swelling presidential ambitions. These days "national security" experience is measured almost exclusively by how much blood you are willing to spill in countries you know almost nothing about. It didn't take long for Warren to matriculate to the company position.

Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we are still in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are both long dead. The shattered remnants of Al Qaeda have fled to Pakistan and parts unknown. Hamid Karzai has come and gone. For the last six months, the US hasn't even troubled itself to send an ambassador to Kabul.

A kind of convenient cultural amnesia has set in, abetted by a compliant press corps that has largely decamped from the Hindu Kush and now treats Afghanistan as if it is some kind of interstellar region, where photographers are occasionally dispatched to snap eerie debris clouds from the detonation of MOAB bombs. It's no wonder that the few Americans who continue to support the war cling to the delusion that Afghanistan orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. It is the War that Time Forgot.

Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. Since the first US airstrikes hit Kandahar in October 2001, more than 150,000 Afghan civilians have been killed. Still Afghanistan resists imperial dictates. Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in 2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must be punished. Eternally, it seems.

As for Trump, in his quest to privatize as much of the federal government as possible the president is still apparently entranced with the idea of turning over much of the Afghan operation to military contractors. As McCain and Warren were issuing their war cries from Kabul, Trump and Company huddled with Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater Security, and billionaire financier Stephen Feinberg, owner of DynCorp, on how to replace US troops with mercenaries from their training camps.

Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1 trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration.

The New York Time's Maggie Haberman was thrilled by some most blood-curdling lines in Trump's big speech on the war, Tweeting: "We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists," says POTUS, in one of his more forceful/best lines of address." All you need to do to earn the love of the "failing New York Times, " Donald, is to kill-kill-kill and not re-build what you destroy. Trump's new Afghanistan plan replicates worst aspects of Obama's awful Af-Pak strategy, with India thrown into the mix just to increase risk of nuclear war. If Trump continues with this neocon drift, HRC may get a 3 AM call from "the creep" asking her to replace Rexxon as Secretary of State .

If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan.

Forget marijuana, the real gateway to heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom.

Booked Up

What I'm reading this week

  1. Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration and Homeland Security by Todd Miller
  2. Rebel Yell: the Violence, Passion and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson by SC Gwynne
  3. Buried in the Bitter Waters: the Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America by Eliot Jaspin

Sound Grammar

RIP John Abercrombie

[Aug 26, 2017] The Pink Revolution and How to Beat It by Israel Shamir

Highly recommended!
Actually the Department of State can serve as the US Embassy in this case ;-), Remember demarche of some US diplomats, who objected to the election of Trump. That's a typical color revolution trick. Happened previously during first and second Maydan in Ukraine.
Also do not underestimated the ability to coordinate protests via selected group of intelligence professionals who are abusing their status in their organizations (with tacit leadership approval).
But Shamir while mentioned globalism does not mentions or analyze neoliberalism and this is a very serious weakness of the article.
Notable quotes:
"... Colour revolutions usually occur only in the countries blessed with a US diplomatic presence. You need an American embassy to find the perspective ruler to be uplifted by a human swell and placed on the throne; you need an American embassy to bring in enough cash to cover expenses of the organised mayhem; you need an American diplomat to protect the revolutionaries and to order the present dictator to desist. Could it be that there is now an American Embassy in America? ..."
"... The Great American Colour Revolution marches on. The script is very similar to the ones they have used overseas. Usually it includes toppled monuments. ..."
"... The force behind the colour revolutions, including the present American one, is not an American force, not even the American deep state, but a global one, serving the globalist elite and the shadowy world government. ..."
"... The world globalists received a serious blow when their candidate Hillary Clinton lost the election, but they didn't waste time and immediately mobilised for a fight. They aren't going to give up hegemony. Practically all the media, judicial system, Congress, intelligence services are in their hands. Charlottesville provided an occasion to show rednecks in whose hands rests hegemony. ..."
"... Hegemonists have their own storm troops – Antifa. This extremist movement was born in Germany. ..."
"... And now Antifa came to America. They have the same mode of action as in Germany. Whoever is against them is a Nazi, or a "white racist". ..."
"... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
"... The Unz Review ..."
"... Eurasia has had enough and is turning away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we exhibit. ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Colour revolutions usually occur only in the countries blessed with a US diplomatic presence. You need an American embassy to find the perspective ruler to be uplifted by a human swell and placed on the throne; you need an American embassy to bring in enough cash to cover expenses of the organised mayhem; you need an American diplomat to protect the revolutionaries and to order the present dictator to desist. Could it be that there is now an American Embassy in America?

The Great American Colour Revolution marches on. The script is very similar to the ones they have used overseas. Usually it includes toppled monuments. The pro-American forces toppled monuments to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, to Felix Dzerzhinsky in Moscow, to Vladimir Lenin in Kiev, to the Russian soldier-liberator in Tallinn and Warsaw. And now the trend came back home to America like a boomerang, with toppling Confederate statues.

... ... ...

The wonderful Steve Sailer wrote :

"The American deep state has taken down various opposing regimes via the mechanism of a Colour Revolution."

This is a good reading, but not a sufficient one. The force behind the colour revolutions, including the present American one, is not an American force, not even the American deep state, but a global one, serving the globalist elite and the shadowy world government.

Until recently, they used US power for their ends, now they successfully fight the rising Golem of the United States as they fought much a weaker Ukraine or Sweden. "Golem, know thy place" is the incantation used by the Wizard of Prague, the creator of the Golem, in the medieval Jewish legend. This spell suborns the creature.

People close to power in the US know or feel the global hegemony. Its bearers are heavily Jewish liberal groups, who use their PC, their hostility to the Church, their approval of gender flux in order to undermine the mind and mentality of an ordinary American, of a redneck, of a working class Goy (as in the Goy, Bye headline). They ceaselessly tease and annoy this goy, in order to cause his premature acts of rebellion to be easily squashed. In order to spite the worker, they even put on the latest aircraft carrier only toilet bowls and no urinals‚ to make it more comfortable for supposed transgenders and to enrage the rednecks.

The world globalists received a serious blow when their candidate Hillary Clinton lost the election, but they didn't waste time and immediately mobilised for a fight. They aren't going to give up hegemony. Practically all the media, judicial system, Congress, intelligence services are in their hands. Charlottesville provided an occasion to show rednecks in whose hands rests hegemony.

Hegemonists have their own storm troops – Antifa. This extremist movement was born in Germany. There they walk on the streets on the anniversary of Dresden bombings with Israeli flags and chant: "Death to Germany! Long live Bomber Harris" (the British commander of the Air Force, a big fan of the carpet bombing of Germany). They managed to terrorize the Germans: as soon as someone objects they call their opponent a Nazi and beat him up. And if they encounter resistance, the police comes to the rescue. That's why in Germany resistance to the mass inflow of migrants was almost imperceptible. It is spoken about in the kitchen, but not on the streets.

And now Antifa came to America. They have the same mode of action as in Germany. Whoever is against them is a Nazi, or a "white racist". They proved their mettle in Charlottesville, the city blessed with the Jewish mayor who chose the city police. Many Jewish activists came to participate, from as far as Boston. After the scuffle, the newspapers raised a hue and cry: Nazis attack Jews!

President Trump condemned both sides participating in the brawl‚ both white nationalists and Antifa. It is exactly what his opponents were waiting for. His attempt to stay above the brawl was doomed to defeat: liberal hegemonists immediately branded him a racist and neo-Nazi. Trump reminded them that not all defenders of the monument were white racists, but this argument didn't work.

... ... ...

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review .

bliss_porsena > , August 26, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

Brawling street-fighting rabbles do not a revolutionary civil war make. You need snipers on rooftops. Every perspective ruler knows that.

Greg Bacon > , Website August 26, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest FEMA Gulag for reeducation NOW! Don't force us to kick down your door at 3 am.

What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:

"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."

Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry. Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.

They advocate for the abolition of gender:

They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:

And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open proponents of communism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/armed-antifa-group-hosts-%E2%80%9Cour-enemies-blue%E2%80%9D-anti-police-workshop

Robert Magill > , August 26, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT

This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world leadership.

The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do.

Eurasia has had enough and is turning away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we exhibit.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

[Aug 26, 2017] Racism is a new rallying cry of anti-Trump coalition

Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Brabantian > , Website August 26, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters

But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well & honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?

Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself but all his family?

As this photo meme suggested

bliss_porsena > , August 26, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

Brawling street-fighting rabbles do not a revolutionary civil war make. You need snipers on rooftops. Every perspective ruler knows that.

Greg Bacon > , Website August 26, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest FEMA Gulag for reeducation NOW! Don't force us to kick down your door at 3 am.

What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:

"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."

Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry. Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.

They advocate for the abolition of gender:

They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:

And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open proponents of communism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/armed-antifa-group-hosts-%E2%80%9Cour-enemies-blue%E2%80%9D-anti-police-workshop

Robert Magill > , August 26, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT

This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world leadership.

The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we exhibit.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

jacques sheete > , August 26, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish racism.

True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world what crazed narcissism looks like.

[Aug 26, 2017] He is unsane line of attacks against Trump widens

Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , August 25, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Ummm..To the Trumpster Stooges:

"A group of psychiatrists has written to Congress to warn Donald Trump poses a "clear and present danger" to the world."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/psychiatrists-tell-congress-donald-trump-074136725.html

I dunno .Will Trump be able to tweet while under sedation at Walter Reed??

marknesop , August 25, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Bush ignored assessments by panels of scientists, environmentalists and intelligence professionals. So, largely, did the press. But of course it suits them to make a big deal of this. Never mind – it's a no-lose situation for those who view America throwing its weight around with a jaundiced eye. If the Democrats and their cronies are unsuccessful at impeaching and removing Trump, it will offer encouragement to further aspirants to the office who are outside the political class. If they are successful, it will be a slap in the face to the people who elected someone because they were fed up with politicians, and voting participation will fall off still further.
Jen , August 25, 2017 at 2:33 pm
Well the Yahoo article doesn't say if the "group" of psychiatrists is a small group or a large group so we have no way of knowing if these psychiatrists are even representative of US psychiatrists generally. Are they even endorsed in their opinion by their professional associations? If the group or its opinions on Trump's mental health are not endorsed or supported by the American Psychiatric Association, and if these psychiatrists are not prepared to go public with their qualifications and expertise (so that the public can judge for itself that these people are bona fide mental health professionals and not presumptuous quacks), then the group has no right to pass judgement on Trump's health.

The fact that this group's leader Dr Bandy Lee is apparently working with Democrat members of Congress (and not with Republican members) to set up a panel to monitor and advise on Trump's health tells us her group is just another political lobby group. I should think also the fact that much of Congress is already antagonistic towards the Trump administration and is looking for an excuse to impeach him on the grounds of mental or other incapacity under the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution is suspicious and in this context Dr Bandy Lee's group and its letter represent a clear danger to democracy.

yalensis , August 25, 2017 at 2:43 pm
I don't think a psychiatrist can assess a patient if that person isn't actually their patient, and they haven't spoken to them.
marknesop , August 25, 2017 at 7:52 pm
You have apparently forgotten the eminent psychologist Vladimir Pastukhov's diagnosis of Putin's mental state from reading a newspaper article about him.
marknesop , August 25, 2017 at 7:49 pm
I guess this must be proof that the presidency drove Trump crazy. There were no gratuitous assessments of his mental health prior to that, and he doesn't sound any different to me.

[Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir. ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Robert Magill, August 23, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT

"The country's bourgeois culture] laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance substance abuse and crime.

You might think that's pretty bland stuff."

You might think that's bland, but in essence that was the American Myth for most of the 20th century. In the middle nineteen fifties the myth began to unravel when the boomers reached sufficient numbers to be targeted for separation from the mainstream mythology. They constituted a potential very lucrative major market. Enter bubble-gum pop: an entry vehicle for what would follow. Bye bye "Your Hit Parade". Hello Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.

Forward flash to 2017 and that pretty bland stuff still looks like pretty bland stuff. So if Myth America was too bland to be true, how do we set about replacing it with something more realistic.

In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir.

GummyBar, August 23, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT

May I suggest an acronym – rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.

[Aug 24, 2017] Russian meddling is Watergate-worthy, but Israeli meddling is hunky-dory by Philip Weiss

This is the key question: if there are instances of meddling in the USA elections while not to investigate them all, why to select Russia who is probably a monor player in this game.
Notable quotes:
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
www.defenddemocracy.press

The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)

But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.

Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.

First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.

Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.

Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who launched his dazzling career, in his own words, "with the support of the pro-Israel community," wrote :

"This is unbelievable! Trump Administration ignored Israel's security concerns in making the Syrian deal with Putin."

While Daniel Shapiro , also a former U.S. ambassador to Israel– who lately called Israel "this miracle, this gift, this jewel" -- wrote that the deal needs to be revised:

Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.

Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.

I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:

  • Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
  • Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
  • Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.

[Aug 24, 2017] Notes On The Junta, An Unnecessary Land-Corridor And A Regular Russian Maneuver

Neoliberalism logically leads to the establishment on military junta or some variation of centralized control of the state. This also makes possible to suppress or at least deflect the wave of right wing nationalism that is swiping all Western countries and which also is the restion to the failure of neoliberalism as a social system The USA is just a little bit ahead of EU countries in this respect
Notable quotes:
"... Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff. ..."
"... Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans. ..."
"... The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters. ..."
"... The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law. ..."
"... This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog ..."
"... on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again. ..."
"... But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo. ..."
"... I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues. ..."
"... Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans. ..."
"... Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil ..."
"... "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements". ..."
"... As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method.. ..."
"... The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced. ..."
"... I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's. ..."
"... The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:) ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
According to a 1950s political theory The Structure of Power in American Society is mainly build on three elite groups, the high military, the corporation executives and the political directorate. (The "political directorate" can best be described as the bureaucracy, the CIA and their proxies within Congress.)

On election day I noted that only the military had supported The Not-Hillary President . The corporate and executive corners of the triangle had pushed for Hillary Clinton and continued to do so even after Trump had won. (Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down.) I wrote:

The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.

That turned out to be right. A military junta is now ruling the United States:

Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear -- and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.

At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.

...

Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.

With the firing of the renegade Flynn and various other Trump advisors, the Junta has already removed all independent voices in the White House. It is now attaching more control wires to its "salesperson" marionette:

The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.

P Walker | Aug 24, 2017 10:16:40 AM | 1

Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans.
yancey | Aug 24, 2017 10:48:40 AM | 2
The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters.

The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law.

Anonymous | Aug 24, 2017 10:58:10 AM | 4
Meanhwhile NATO join Sweden in tremendous military exercise next month. But western outlet propaganda journalists wont tell you about that...
Exercise: "Aurora 17"
"Is a planned military exercise that will take place in Sweden during a three-week period, from 11 through 29 September 2017.[1] It is expected to be the largest military exercise in 20 years to take place on Swedish soil.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_17

Also: Mattis mulls supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons after visit
https://www.sott.net/article/360000-Mattis-mulls-supplying-Ukraine-with-lethal-weapons-after-visit

nmb | Aug 24, 2017 10:59:05 AM | 5
As Western propaganda rapidly collapses, Washington's hawks start to retire from searching for pretexts
Yul | Aug 24, 2017 11:20:28 AM | 7
@b

This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog

Yul | Aug 24, 2017 11:23:14 AM | 8
BTW: Mad Dog has thrown the Kurds under the bus:
YPG:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ypg-not-a-choice-but-necessity-us-tells-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=117126&NewsCatID=409

PKK:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/mattis-pledges-support-erdogan-pkk-turkey.html

Jonesy | Aug 24, 2017 11:25:12 AM | 9
More anti-Iranian propaganda from the UK, this is not a coincidence IMHO:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4815440/Iranian-backed-fighters-close-corridor-Med.html

james | Aug 24, 2017 11:25:54 AM | 10
thanks b..

on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again.

point 2 - israel wants a war with iran.. they will dream up anything they can to keep the usa military on alert for whatever hairbrained warmongering act they have in mind next..

point 3.. more bullshit to sprinkle with what is not bullshit - nato war exercises as @4 anonymous points out...

dh | Aug 24, 2017 11:40:51 AM | 11
@8 Mad Dog might as well come right out and tell the YPG/PKK/SDF they are dispensable. Time for another rabies shot.
Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 24, 2017 11:49:23 AM | 12
...
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
...

I agree it's beginning to LOOK grim for Trump, b.

But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo.

psychohistorian | Aug 24, 2017 12:24:55 PM | 14
Thanks for the posting b.

That said, again the private finance folk are not included in your analysis. The private finance folk are certainly part of Trump's inner circle and none of them have been ejected. Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations......

I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues.

fastfreddy | Aug 24, 2017 12:45:11 PM | 16
Western Society is awash in propaganda as it is enveloped in a Homeland Security/Domestic Surveillance Police State - New World Order - Juggernaut.

Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans.

(Homeland Security is budgeted such that airport security personnel are hired not out of necessity, but simply to soak up the funding.

dahoit | Aug 24, 2017 12:47:16 PM | 18
In the Guardian the other day they had a poll;54


''''5


In the Guardian the other day; 54% to 27% saying leave the Con. monuments alone.

Brad | Aug 24, 2017 1:01:51 PM | 21
@14
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-315-meet-goldman-sachs-the-vampire-squid/

Everyone sing.....

" Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil , they are Evil as can be...."

ben | Aug 24, 2017 2:10:13 PM | 24
Thanks b, I would agree that a military Junta has the reins and Trump's ear, but, as

psycho @ 14 said.. "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements".

Noirette | Aug 24, 2017 2:25:01 PM | 25
The raucous clamor painting Trump as a Russkie collaborator has now sputtered, frizzled out, to be replaced by the equally lame 'Trump is a neo-nazi fascist racist mysoginist' as his supporters 'mow down ppl', etc. or whatever. All these elements were present before he was elected. (Trump is less racist than Obama..not that it matters..)

As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method..

The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced.

frances | Aug 24, 2017 2:30:39 PM | 26
B- Great article,just a few thoughts

re the surfeit of military

I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's.

re Trump info access

He has people who can and do provide him with info galore outside of the office, he is not as isolated as you suggest, and he is out of the office a lot:)
re Wars

... ... ...

re Afghanistan

The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:)

[Aug 24, 2017] Russian meddling is Watergate-worthy, but Israeli meddling is hunky-dory by Philip Weiss

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite . ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
07, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)

But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.

Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.

First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.

Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.

Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who launched his dazzling career, in his own words, "with the support of the pro-Israel community," wrote :

"This is unbelievable! Trump Administration ignored Israel's security concerns in making the Syrian deal with Putin."

While Daniel Shapiro , also a former U.S. ambassador to Israel– who lately called Israel "this miracle, this gift, this jewel" -- wrote that the deal needs to be revised:

Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.

Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.

I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:

  • –Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
  • –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
  • –Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.

[Aug 23, 2017] The Lies on Afghanistan

Aug 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The Lies on Afghanistan

by Matthew Hoh

by

Photo by DVIDSHUB | CC BY 2.0

There has never been progress by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, unless you are asking the U.S. military contractors or the Afghan drug barons, of whom an extremely large share are our allies in the Afghan government, militias and security forces, there has only been suffering and destruction. American politicians, pundits and generals will speak about "progress" made by the 70,000 American troops put into Afghanistan by President Obama beginning in 2009, along with an additional 30,000 European troops and 100,000 private contractors, however the hard and awful true reality is that the war in Afghanistan has only escalated since 2009, never stabilizing or deescalating; the Taliban has increased in strength by tens of thousands, despite tens of thousands of casualties and prisoners; and American and Afghan casualties have continued to grow every year of the conflict, with U.S. casualties declining only when U.S. forces began to withdraw in mass numbers from parts of Afghanistan in 2011, while Afghan security forces and civilians have experienced record casualties every year since those numbers began to be kept by the UN.

Similarly, any progress in reconstructing or developing Afghanistan has been found to be non existent despite the more than $100 billion spent by the United States on such efforts by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR). $100 billion, by the way, is more money than was spent on the Marshall Plan when that post-WWII reconstruction plan is put into inflation adjusted dollars. Oft repeated claims, such as millions of Afghan school girls going to school, millions of Afghans having access to improved health care and Afghan life expectancy dramatically increasing, and the construction of an Afghan job building economy have been exposed as nothing more than public relations lies. Often displayed as modern Potemkin Villages to visiting journalists and congressional delegations and utilized to justify continued budgets for the Pentagon and USAID, and, so, to allow for more killing, like America's reconstruction program in Iraq, the reconstruction program in Afghanistan has proven to be a failure and its supposed achievements shown to be virtually non-existent, as documented by multiple investigations by SIGAR, as well as by investigators and researchers from organizations such as the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, etc.

Tonight, the American people will hear again the great lie about the progress the American military once made in Afghanistan after "the Afghan Surge", just as we often hear the lie about how the American military had "won" in Iraq. In Iraq it was a political compromise that brought about a cessation of hostilities for a few short years and it was the collapse of the political balance that had been struck that led to the return to the violence of the last several years. In Afghanistan there has never even been an attempt at such a political solution and all the Afghan people have seen in the last eight years, every year, has been a worsening of the violence.

Americans will also hear tonight how the U.S. military has done great things for the Afghan people. You would be hard pressed to find many Afghans outside of the incredibly corrupt and illegitimate government, a better definition of a kleptocracy you will not find, that the U.S. keeps in power with its soldiers and $35 billion a year, who would agree with the statements of the American politicians, the American generals and the pundits, the latter of which are mostly funded, directly or indirectly, by the military companies. It is important to remember that for three straight elections in Afghanistan the United States government has supported shockingly fraudulent elections, allowing American soldiers to kill and die while presidential and parliamentary elections were brazenly stolen. It is also important to remember that many members of the Afghan government are themselves warlords and drug barons, many of them guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses and war crimes, the same abuses of which the Taliban are guilty, while the current Ghani government, and the previous Karzai government, have allowed egregious crimes to continue against women, including laws that allow men to legally rape their wives.

Whatever President Trump announces tonight about Afghanistan, a decision he teased on Twitter, as if the announcement were a new retail product launch or television show episode, as opposed to the somber and painful reality of war, we can be assured the lies about American progress in Afghanistan will continue, the lies about America's commitment to human rights and democratic values will continue, the profits of the military companies and drug barons will also continue, and of course the suffering of the Afghan people will surely continue.

Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in protest of the escalation of the Afghan War by the Obama Administration. He previously had been in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.

[Aug 23, 2017] Trumps Afghan war strategy is related to the attempt to exploit mineral respources of Afghanistan to offset the costs of the war

Notable quotes:
"... What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change. ..."
"... More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is our Edmund Burke? ..."
"... I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North Korea. ..."
"... Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous, with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources. ..."
"... This is an unquestionable defeat for Trump's voters ..."
"... The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we can't leave. ..."
"... Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement. ..."
"... My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia. ..."
"... One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy. ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

MEOW , says: August 21, 2017 at 11:18 pm

Conflict Deaths and the song goes on
Span
Casualties
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 25,000
Northwest Indian War 1785-1795 ~1,056
Quasi-War 1798-1800 514
War of 1812 1812-1815 ~20,000
1st Seminole War 1817-1818 36
Black Hawk War 1832 305
2nd Seminole War 1835-1842 1,535
Mexican-American War 1846-1848 13,283
3rd Seminole War 1855-1858 26
American Civil War 1861-1865 ~625,000
Indian Wars 1865-1898 919
Great Sioux War 1875-1877 314
Spanish-American War 1898 2,446
Philippine-American War 1898-1913 4,196
Boxer Rebellion 1900-1901 131
Mexican Revolution 1914-1919 ~35
Haiti Occupation 1915-1934 148
World War 1 1917-1918 116,516
North Russia Campaign 1918-1920 424
American Expeditionary Force Siberia 1918-1920 328
Nicaragua Occupation 1927-1933 48
World War 2 1941-1945 405,399
Korean War 1950-1953 36,516
Vietnam War 1955-1975 58,209
El Salvador Civil War 1980-1992 37
Beirut 1982-1984 266
Grenada 1983 19
Panama 1989 40
Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 258
Operation Provide Comfort 1991-1996 19
Somalia Intervention 1992-1995 43
Bosnia 1995-2004 12
NATO Air Campaign Yugoslavia 1999 20
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) 2001-2014 2,356
Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) 2003-2012 4,489
Andrew Zook , says: August 22, 2017 at 6:02 am
What if Trump's character and his supporters' character (lack thereof) made it easy for this to come about? I know here at TAC there was an effort to make Trump_vs_deep_state appear to be non-confrontational but Trump's a good con-man and those of us who were/are #neverTrump saw that years ago and now that he's in numerous bad spots, he'll do what humans like him (of such low character) have always done distract and posture and pick fights that kill other people in a quest to feel like a winner again God help us through this and maybe this time we'll learn our lesson.
EliteCommInc. , says: August 22, 2017 at 7:22 am
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

No.

" . . . accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North Koreans, and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious defeat and 58,000 dead at the hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North Vietnamese army."

Since the US military was not in Vietnam in 1975, I it's going to be very tough to read through the rest of this. One of these days the self flagellation about Vietnam will eventually cease. Our departure was premature, but a defeat it was not.

Good grief. Aside from the US Embassy, the military presence in Vietnam was minimal. We all but departed in 1973. Had we remained, it most likely would have modeled the situation between North and South Korea.

What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change.

Conservative American , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:11 am
@George_Patton : "he [Trump] will let those Arabs in Afghanistan know whose boss. I thought this was the american CONSERVATIVE, not the American Pansy."

You borrowed the honorable name of Patton. But the real George Patton wouldn't fight a stupid, unnecessary war. The real George Patton was a military scholar who closely studied his enemy; you can bet your a** he would know that Afghans aren't Arabs.

Ignorance like this gives American conservatism a bad name. TAC's writers are trying to fix that. Get out of their way.

Clifford Story , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:16 am
Donnie was not ENTIRELY silent on Afghanistan's natural resources. Kevin Drum heard this tidbit, and confirmed it from the transcript:

"In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/how-will-afghanistan-defray-the-cost-of-the-war/

I'm sure this will work almost as well as using Iraqi oil to pay for that war

Sam , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:21 am
My God this is demoralizing!
Conewago , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:33 am
"'Three yards and a cloud of dusty'" is a reference to a classic of American football, Woody Hayes. But any true college football enthusiast knows the sordid way in which Coach Hayes saw his great career end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVJyf0ft3I

He was too stubborn for his own good. Americans of the post-Vietnam breed, like football fans, no longer take to three yards and a cloud of dust. Even if it was worth trying in Afghanistan, this country couldn't do it for long. More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is our Edmund Burke?

Hexexis , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:37 am
"how the US can get supplies to Afghanistan without Pakistan?"

This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.

Mac61 , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:43 am
Three yards and a cloud of dust worked well for Ohio State in the 1970s. They don't play football like that anymore.

We have strategies for containment or for mitigating greater damage not for winning. Like Donald Rumsfeld, we as a country mostly go about our business not caring and not even thinking about it because the toll is "an acceptable death rate."

I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North Korea.

Rebuild the USA.

George_Patton , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:48 am
Conservative American,

I think you are in the minority both here and in the country. We who want to make America Great Again, can only do so if we show how strong we are. And I admire Patton, he studied the enemy to kill them, thats what military people do. Not Pansies. At least, EliteCommInc understands this. We think we lost Vietnam because it was pounded into us by the liberal media. We won that war, and left because it was time for us to leave.

March Hare , says: August 22, 2017 at 10:53 am
Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous, with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources.

In the case of gold, artisanal mining (Joe and Bubba with a couple bulldozers and a heap leach pad) might be able to make a few bucks. Everything else requires either cheap bulk transportation (trains or ships) or requires the construction of concentrators and smelters nearby. Those facilities need water, and a local workforce.

None of that infrastructure exists now, and none will be constructed realistically within the next 16 years. And if it were, where would all the goodies go? West through Iran, northeast through to China, so who would be benefitting from all that expense?

peterc , says: August 22, 2017 at 11:01 am
A few more stars for the brass, many more $ for the defense industry. At the cost of more dead and maimed – ours and theirs. Their dead and maimed will increase the number of those who "love" us. And we will foot the bill. I was hoping for something else.
Dan Green , says: August 22, 2017 at 11:19 am
No surprises here. Trump is surrounded by military. When one thinks about it, we are typically a waring nation always involved in a war or some conflict we choose to stick our nose in. Obama had zero use for the military brass and therefore the brass had zero influence for 8 long years.
Jon S , says: August 22, 2017 at 11:41 am
This is an unquestionable defeat for Trump's voters
One Man , says: August 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Trump should declare victory and leave. It will fool his supporters, who have proven they are easily fooled.
David Smith , says: August 22, 2017 at 12:53 pm
The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we can't leave.

This is the definition of a defeat. We can send as many troops as we want, we can keep them there as long as we want, we can drop as many bombs as we want, we can kill as many people as we want, but we can't control the country.

FreeOregon , says: August 22, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Robert E. Lee and Douglas McArthur are sorely missed. Maybe the generals have a limited mindset, one not geared to achieving resolution, and peace?
Fabian , says: August 22, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement.
Who Da Boss , says: August 22, 2017 at 2:25 pm
@George_Patton – "We who want to make America Great Again, can only do so if we show how strong we are. "

But Trump's not strong. He's weak! He can't even show his generals who's boss, like Truman did, or Lincoln. He can't even show Bibi Netanyahu who's boss! He lets Israel rip us off while we do all the fighting. Hell, Trump can't even show MITCH MCCONNELL who's boss! We need a strong, conservative American president, not a weak punk like Trump.

PR Doucette , says: August 22, 2017 at 3:52 pm
Interesting that this article or any others on the same topic make any mention of the concerns the US government and/or military have regarding the warming relationship between Pakistan and China and the recent agreement between these countries to develop a road/rail link between China and the development of a new deep sea port on the coast of the Arabian Sea in Pakistan. My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia.
Someone in the crowd , says: August 22, 2017 at 4:33 pm
This is a huge victory for everyone who wants to see the U.S. continue bleeding itself to death while feeding a bloated 'defense' and imperial bureaucracy.

One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy.

Dieter Heymann , says: August 22, 2017 at 5:31 pm
March Hare. When I consider the emergence of China since the death of Mao I would not rule out the possibility that its engineers and Afghan work force could create the infrastructure needed to make Afghanistan's mining profitable in less than 16 years.
philadelphialawyer , says: August 22, 2017 at 8:54 pm
"My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia."

Trump is the President. Its his job and duty and responsibility to push back against those "leaders." Same as it was Obama's. Both failed.

Also, you have hit on the very reason why the US, even if one concedes that it must play the Great Game, can certainly afford to be "pushed out of South Asia." Russia and China and Pakistan and India and Iran and Turkey and the Arabs, and others, all have interests there. There is a natural balance of power in Mainland Asia. The US simply does not need to be a player there. Central Asia is far from any vital US interest, any US treaty ally, any important shipping lane, any important anything. If there is one place on Earth that the US can reasonably concede to others the task of policing and controlling it has got to be Central Asia.

Just let it go.

john , says: August 22, 2017 at 8:55 pm
I do object to the title of the article, this isn't a losing strategy, this is a not-winning strategy. You might ask yourself what you are doing playing a game where winning is impossible?
Janwaar Bibi , says: August 22, 2017 at 9:41 pm
This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.

To understand Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, you need to look at their border, which is called the Durand Line, after some Brit who drew it on the map.

The Durand Line cuts right through the Pashtun homelands, so you have Pashtuns on both sides. Afghanistan is dominated by Pashtuns, and they have never recognized the Durand Line – in fact, Afghanistan was the only country in the world that voted against admitting Pakistan to the UN in 1948 for this reason, and even the Taliban refused to recognize the Durand Line.

Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis, and their nightmare is that if a strong Afghan government were to emerge, their Pashtun province of Khyber-Pakhtunkwa might want to secede and join their fellow Pashtuns in Afghanistan. To prevent this, they have undermined every government in Afghanistan and kept it weak by funding rival tribes.

Since it is politically incorrect to say that they are undermining a fellow Muslim state, the Pakistani government puts out some BS about the need for "strategic depth" against India. India has fought numerous wars against Pakistan but they were border skirmishes – neither side advanced more than 20-30 km inside the other's territory (1971 is another story). We are already blessed with 200 million Muslims in India – no one in his right mind wants to occupy Pakistan and take in another 200 million, a lot of whom are fanatics and jihadis. If there was some way to saw Pakistan off and float it out into the Indian Ocean, we would do it in a heartbeat.

By the way, the Hindu Kush is part of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, not with India. No Hindus left alive there by the Religion of Peace for anyone to worry about.

[Aug 22, 2017] Interactive Timeline Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump by Steven Harper

Hatchet job. But pretty well designed hatchet job. Sophisticated set of lies mixed with truth to facilitate the witch hunt.
Aug 21, 2017 | billmoyers.com

Explore our updated, comprehensive Trump-Russia Timeline -- or select one of the central players in the Trump-Russia saga to see what we know about them.

... ... ...

Steven Harper blogs at The Belly of the Beast , is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University, and contributes regularly to The American Lawyer. He is the author of several books, including The Lawyer Bubble -- A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa -- A Teamster's Story (a Chicago Tribune "Best Book of the Year"). Follow him on Twitter: @StevenJHarper1 .

[Aug 22, 2017] Russia-gate's Evidentiary Void by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.

The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.

A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."

Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.

The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary foundation.

"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.

Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies, however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."

The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.

"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."

By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must be slapped down promptly and decisively.

A Flimsy Assessment

But that gets us back to the problem with the Jan. 6 "Intelligence Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who called them "hand-picked."

Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact, but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.

The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012 presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.

But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other mainstream news outlets – treated it as gospel and pretended that it represented a "consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly, the Times slipped in a correction to that falsehood in one article although continuing to use similar language in subsequent stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly that the Russian government was the source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge. (This is not to say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include relevant denials from parties facing accusations.)

Conspiracy Mongering

The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the Times reported that the hacker, known only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents inside Ukraine. President Barack Obama and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.

Ukraine's SBU security service also has been implicated in possible torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to Ukrainian government detention facilities housing ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme nationalists and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into the July 17, 2014 shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible – not even addressing a Dutch/NATO intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of the Ukrainian military – and instead tried to pin the atrocity on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.

In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged Russian government hacking operations – is.

The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."

Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to its lair has so far proved impossible, not least because many experts believe that no such single place exists."

Lacking Witnesses

The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery – so to the rescue came the "reliable" regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian government hacking group."

The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the Russians albeit without any real evidence.

The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently implicated the government authorities in Moscow."

The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look like an official Ukrainian election graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly sent this "spoof" graphic to Channel 1, which used it.

But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results, suggests an effort to discredit Channel 1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made this example a cornerstone in its case against the Russians.

Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.

So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel truth by the Times and much of the U.S. government – and anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading "Russian propaganda."

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm

Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper into the status of laughable but also malicious clowns? Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT -- The only group maintaining any respectability within these entities is the VIPS group.

Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may nuke you --

Anna , August 18, 2017 at 5:32 pm

You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights for his pet project by any means and he is beyond himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria and thus stopped the dissolution of Syria.

The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.

And he wants to see Iran obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide the best living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see profits, even if his profitable fake-news business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess. He is not aware that the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface. Would not this planet be better without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?

JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem. At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.

"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" . http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

Erik G , August 18, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Yes, the VIPS & CN have provided critical analysis of these mass media scams, often led by the biased NYT.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink .

Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm

The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to President Trump, first published on this site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening message to The Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now? Shift the tactic to playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods, and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged event in Charlottesville, being all too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine.

Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm

I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch investigators confirm a Russian-blaming narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian) Ukrainian authorities.

I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis. Those who fell for the Bre-X scam some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done an independent collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and people may have just assumed such an independent collection had taken place.

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm

It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian government, are considered reliable sources in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a hacker somewhere else to make absurd claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes all others to be greater fools.

JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:14 pm

Israel controls the New York Times. Therefore this is an Israeli operation. "What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis" http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/

The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and totally disavowed all forms of racism, white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from the Wall Street gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting base.) Perhaps the glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out next?
"Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/
"Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address in Tel Aviv Israel, and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of course.

I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies, servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have its servers in Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its servers could be anywhere. So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.

Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter anti-Russia views on both fronts, it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must be a real growth industry in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.

Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm

This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to publish "evidence" of malfeasance on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in 2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm

At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the office of VP Cheney, who would later cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD, completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff were pressured by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance germinated in the mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs with that administration.

Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm

There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA Director to wage a war against Trump. Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy? Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm

Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable suppositions as to who put this mess in motion and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it. He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made some kind of deal, reached some kind of accommodation.

Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm

It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM is unwilling to ask the same hard questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in their desperate desire to bring down Trump.

Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm

I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the flimsy Russia-gate distraction when there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize the Trump administration.

*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Check.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm

Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow, FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc) that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm

But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with neocons to bring Trump down.

Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.

BobH , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I believe this is what Drogon was saying, and I also believe it's a valid point.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm

I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC. But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm

Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said some pretty factual things that made sense, you had to go find something to make a negative comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish I'll bet your working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look ignorant instead.

If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't bring any class, or anything worthwhile to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last couple of days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation, but as I can see I shouldn't take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter what what is wrong with you man.

Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm

All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think Russia-gate will, but it is obviously that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over Russia when they have much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is real AND impeachable, but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect attention from their internal problems and many among their number are guilty of similaar crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it doesn't advance their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if he is ever going to be impeached.

turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm

That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline of factual events. Tells the story better for anyone with an open mind.

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and, as such, he almost certainly has corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical, these connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there currently any evidence that he collaborated with the Russian government to throw the election? No.

Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm

Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has lost it.

I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:

"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case that she had acted wrongly in Libya "

Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent woman on that account. Obviously nobody would have commented if it had been a MAN with the same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's email maneuvers.

h**p://billmoyers.com/story/hillary-hatred-revisited/

The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- -- -- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't held to somewhat different standards than men.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm

Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for me, now it's just the place for Trump and Putin apologists.

Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm

"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm

""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars."

Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm

Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if you tried.

D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am

"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association tool again. Anyone critical of the Official Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from you automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.

Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm

He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm

His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm

I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and claim to have refuted. That's not winning an argument, it's just being loud and intolerant.

LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am

So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war apologist.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the chain of events. Very illustrative. Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers and Clinton.

D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm

The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption, is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which you're pushing here. There is no evidence on the specific accusation that Trump worked with Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association, give us a heads-up on where and what it is.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm

WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections to Russian (and Italian) organized crime.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm

That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.

Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Two different animals.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
?
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm

Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy from foreign vulture capitalists, only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies, as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies. It's shockingly ignored here.

BobH , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for the corporate intelligence network not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist and often advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he starts out by "poisoning the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA is all the rage among Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil Putin's maneuvers but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually read it).

Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm

BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New York, and London too. They were lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the West. That is how our British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the West they are, never really learnt the art you are describing.

May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting Russia in a big way. But they have not dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm

If your mind is open like a sieve.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm

The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information. A dam on the other hand prevents the flow. Most here have built dams against anything implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from many sources.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm

Good analogy.
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists, especially with respect to Charlottesville e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat alone in standing up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in disputing the 'official' narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight to the American empire, it doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist authoritarian into the presidency.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made sure that he didn't stand a chance to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton means she cheats.

Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your selling. She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of a person .now go mimic me you clown.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm

"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
She helped.

"Bernie would have won"
Agreed.

"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost.."
You should get your money back for the ESL course.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm

BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm

Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on the carcass of the USSR and the state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the most unrestrained crony capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me wonder who these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.

Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am

What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.

Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm

Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate propaganda is intended solely to distract from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of accusations of the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm

Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS is. I guess you find it easier to ignore dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona. And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like "Russiagate" is a cheap parlor trick.

Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am

BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and apparently you know it. I demand your evidence, not propaganda.

DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am

"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established"

All that's missing is evidence.

Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm

I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself out of the market, as have many other newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking out even the meanest of livings.

It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump hysteria in general, to which has been added the charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide so-called progressives while casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite a challenging environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the conventional wisdom being touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm

So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks to Trump for defending them.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents their views. This includes what would be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and the right.

Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5% threshold they are represented in the legislature and may even participate in forming a government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties is closer to their own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't mean that Trump is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm

Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm

Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump, because you are still living the 2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances, how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain) orchestrated the coup in Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?

Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with me, but it does mean you are an ignorant know it all, if you don't answer me with some common respect.

Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who whether they agreed with you or not, at least the use of good manners did lead to our learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person, with your little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule the way you do. In other words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that way with your words and actions when you do the silly things you do with your rude comments.

It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge builder. So, when your ready to grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe

Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm

Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed to be merely mistaken – he's simply not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from some stolen land in Israel.

Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy propaganda site.

As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were as bad as they seem. But how to test this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted sinking of the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.

Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".

According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT site within the past 12 months. Double checking, I went to the site and entered the term into the search there. Nothing.

They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out of Syria. The professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do everything they can to disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The deliberate chaos created by these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.

By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written which is notable in any way whatever? I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with them as well.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am

Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is comforting. No, I'm actually honored that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day. Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.

You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here it is in case you haven't, or for the others who may find interest in it as well.

http://thesaker.is/remembering-the-liberty/

Take care Zachary Joe

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:33 am

I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a while.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm

You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt about his sentiments.

Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist has nothing to do with reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What we have is people who want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a president. Since the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is now being milked for everything it has. It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing to do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it. People may be making idiots of themselves, but for them, the ends justifies the means.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are laid out. It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they might actually be doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and embrace both. The world and people are complex, not neatly black or white.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm

I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that if their misdeeds were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump should he win the election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war, already well underway under the Obama administration. It's basic science that you can't come to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed their lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public, and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm

Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes to impeach Trump. Our President is a crook, as well as a racist.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm

I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or Cheney called a racist, or if they were, did the American people buy into it the way they have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations which are predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of innocents with drone warfare? Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries were predominately Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these countries? What about those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention our sense of entitlement to practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right in. Take a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and never get a fair trial, and most of the prison population is black although they constitute a small minority in this country.

I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but she refused to visit an elderly, and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm

"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.

"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and accurately, in my opinion) criticizing Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could -- you could say that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that's for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel."
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he avoided addressing Spencer's point.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm

"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm

I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to point a finger at someone's perceived racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration policies and deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million immigrants. Many Americans don't place what is going on now within an historical framework, not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there is an attempt to undermine the people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but more then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on lies and innuendo. I really don't think that's a good thing --

Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm

Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.

You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public, and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."

By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing left in the country as free and fair Media which informs public. And all these agencies you mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives are like most of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of Rachael Maddow.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm

My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical over the Trump presidency, as is she. He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and will define himself as a liberal thinker. Bah humbug --

frank scott , August 22, 2017 at 7:54 pm

thank you annie

Drew Hunkins , August 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm

"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt."

The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS. It's almost as if the NYT's suffering under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they resort to repeating over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel agencies' assurances. They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval and uncertainty.

To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan who's out of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the NYTers).

Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm

Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY Times , it would be fair to assess it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets to claim the Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm

Too close to call.

D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm

From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies "lack a solid evidentiary foundation."

What would that evidentiary foundation be?

Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to fix the election, starting with hacking the DNC.

Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I wouldn't doubt it."

Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.

Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this story is true.

Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says it's true so it must be true.

Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.

Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:

Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–

"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.

Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ from a high assessment–was some of the logic–since the statement indicates no proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?

He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this means?

Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what this "high" meant, based on what?

Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike, shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.

This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM to which we citizens are now either a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.

"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --

D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.

Stephen J. , August 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm

An interesting read at link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The Neocons Are Pushing the USA and the Rest of the World Towards a Dangerous Crisis
THE SAKER • AUGUST 18, 2017
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:14 pm

The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there (Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel like I have to wash off.

John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm

America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media soon the spark of hate will become an uncontrollable wildfire

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm

It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If you don't think the USA has powerful IT divisions who can forensically determine source and method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction. If you believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument that they don't know anymore than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to protect us in this case from enemies foreign and domestic.

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm

No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove of hack methods including false-flagging methods on the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations of Russia from a Ukrainian hacker.

If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give testimony, after some reasonable period, where grave accusations must be either discredited or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."

The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm

What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter espionage investigation that has been in progress for over one year, and these take years to conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and intel, but you cannot simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you. There are reasons to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into witnesses.

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am

Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to the public, with immediate political implications, especially conclusions that serve immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public even after a month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations" on "high confidence" has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel agencies.

I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with the evidence, although it appears that the secrets could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure method, such as disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues to direct other safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny, a product of excessive spying, and must be discounted by the public.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm

By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of the office of special counsel. I wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and useful to flip for a leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it. It's merely the chronological presentation of factual events.

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm

That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be persuaded to show it.

Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm

I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it gets the treatment.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm

Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.

D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am

The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. Point to anything in this time-line that offers evidence.

Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.

Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these assessments, in which "what we want to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.

Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official government reps over many years now, as well as your swerving aside to an irrelevant "time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.

Stephen J. , August 18, 2017 at 7:26 pm

This is disgusting: where is the outrage?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

Missouri Senator: 'I Hope Trump Is Assassinated -- '
12:46 PM 08/17/2017
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/missouri-senator-i-hope-trump-is-assassinated/

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm

I'm outraged.
Feel better?

Stephen J. , August 18, 2017 at 7:38 pm

I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to make.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm

That's why I'm outraged.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm

See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you say you were outraged, because your squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.

Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm

Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates? To selected politicians, including executive bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf (and ours.)

Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm

Oops, Parry.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt respected.

Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm

"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"

Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New York Times erroneously made this claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think your piece would be strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm

Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid confusion, if you will.

Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm

This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:

This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad more dire than the title of the book):

http://thesaker.is/cooperative-authors-the-killing-of-william-browder-deconstructing-bill-browders-dangerous-deception-alex-krainer-with-review-by-the-saker/

This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America and probably the world-very long but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of perusing:

http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/ ?

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:13 pm

We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though, that the conversation should be had, but not without looking at the type of individuals who flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read regarding these young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry over the rise of minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote, they complain that we spend to much time worried about bathrooms over them having a decent job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not the various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is themselves for not being able to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority losing any of their rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they are their own best hope .attitude is altitude.

I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all public protest.

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am

Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS making a difference. Long time ago, when there was an abundance of factories churning out all sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into the country to fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to understand English.

With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a need for the same amount of "unskilled" labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell curve supposed to do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?

It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make any sense to you, that it's about the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start banging your head against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of people? So some corporation can maintain a cheap labor force?

Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that when things are reduced to words, you miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the sincerity in a person's voice.

Cheers, Joe.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am

You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.

For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require us to pull together. You see, I don't believe that all these problems should be remedied with racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all I'm saying. If only our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If only this country's political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her historical bio. You see backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain gratification.

Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for our leaders to reach out or down, which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful nation God ever put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced this ever distant leadership with ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.

Thanks for your response. Joe

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am

Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe. I think they get angry that they are not being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially in the MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No time now, Joe. Thanks.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm

Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way. You more than likely may have a point that these young white men are not racist, that for many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out their concerns.

What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric they can find to say how they are going to create many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing, as they go on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians seem completely oblivious too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they don't forget.

Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most cases it does prove that to those who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country, then why don't they do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and food for 25 of your guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with enough new jobs to fill the quota of the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe they just didn't care enough to do something about it.

So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because they were neglected by the very people who said they would help them. I don't know about you, but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their back on you.

I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you at least get a peek of what is going on inside my head, with these important issues.

Joe

Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am

"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)

Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same words to backwardsevolution with whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar examples of respectful debaters.

I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that most Americans, especially most Southern Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump is the king of all racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on a racist agenda thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously contrived to me to distract from other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him). I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.

Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both factions by professional agitators. They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared, fearing they might lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and a viable future. Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They can see how disadvantaged those people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the situation, certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half the country does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do not want to confront agitators in the street.

Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world view. We contributors to this site do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't have enough time to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I doubt that many of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally oblivious to will change their lives in any way and they certainly don't want to devote the time or energy to fighting about them.

If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will take some kind of action to bring back jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes alike. I thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is everything still in grid-lock in Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs in and even bring back jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to the idea stopped? If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers than the few idiots who buy the Russia-Gate bullshit.

When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first term, he had devised a lengthy detailed plan of action called the "Contract for America." I was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better with the public than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another election, in fact, we'll kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring peace and harmony to the streets." If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me), racism will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and economically secure and optimistic about our futures. (I've had two black families and a Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No. Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am

Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers. This is a great concern to those who advocate international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.

The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations that provide a standard of living that compares well with the lower middle class of the US, and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be cheaper elsewhere, so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US worker is matched by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is reduced by development assistance.

It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed workers, without you or I being able to help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing decisions without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am

" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers."
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Racism?
Nope.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am

Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of steel mills. If you were a young apprentice sometimes on your first day on the job, no one seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened that you were to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and inducted into the group. We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the existing work force. This comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame for this new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job, was the big lie. Corporate profits override human necessity, and with that we all lose. I don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to Amazons convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown society just cannot afford it.

Good comment as always Sam. Joe

Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm

You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from such a divide and conquer tactic? The robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race goes back to before the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving race (and ethnicity) and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage following all the sturm und drang, all the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one will even remember we personally ever existed.

Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall) will still persist though, just like the confederate statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this era and the players who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even happen here, not to honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve as a lesson rather than hero worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive, so insane?"

Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am

I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what you wrote here. I also think that our government should build right next to the Holocast museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations who the U.S. had destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a Sunday teaching the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's beloved citizens will never know to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to itself. Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every lie you ever told yourself.

The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how our American culture is changing. What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead we should understand that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart, but I do believe that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that weren't known then become known.

It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as you. Joe

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am

Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but your right, at least the masses at his time in office thought the economy was what it was all about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office, but your point is well made.

Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political parties will need to accommodate the voter, if anything is to get better.

Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I could not write what you had wrote any better. Your words are excellent to what we are talking about.

I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe

Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm

I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many here who share such understandings.

backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am

Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out and intelligent posts. They provide class and depth to the conversation. I, on the other hand, do not really belong on this site.

Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am

Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.

backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am

Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --

Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm

Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong. I personally look forward to reading your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and that's no lie. Joe

backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am

Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're always very considerate. What I mean by "I do not really belong on this site" is that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll hang around a while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.

Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm

"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"

With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you backwardsevolution.

backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am

Realist – excellent post. Thank you.

exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am

At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer, was executed based on the crime of propagandizing for war. This article provides further evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda lies. Since the logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity to that which was published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied to US war propagandists, their status as war criminals would be apparent.

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am

exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere, and not just little ones, but huge mothers used to sway public opinion. These guys really need to be in jail.

Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia State Police, but if you happened to hear what McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you probably would have believed McAuliffe.

"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.

"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.

McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who "had better equipment than our State Police had." In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."

All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:43 am

exiled – here's the link for the above:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/virginia-state-police-say-they-didnt-fin

Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 12:16 am

Neo-nazis in Ukraine = good.

Neo-nazis in the US = bad.

To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of free speech, human rights and democracy, all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians should wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am

Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
&
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am

Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in Chicago and is very knowledgeable about these things. After reading The Nation article by Patrick Lawrence, he said:

"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The second part of the statement, however, is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.

When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the slowest link in the middle.

There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second) speeds. But you would need such pipes end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.

What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most "pedestrian" operating systems do not handle well at all.

In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an issue with the maximum realistically obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can be tuned for if you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems -- specifically, server-class operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert knowledge to do so. [ ]

But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack." The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack" at all: It's an inside job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the documents later to make it look like Russians.

And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.

PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an SD card or external USB device plugged into the machine there is an event log from said machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached. Find that log (or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match it against the metadata times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did it with near-certainty, proved by the forensic evidence.

Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take custody of said logs and go through them to perform this investigation -- which would have pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."

Read the whole thing.

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am

Here's the link for the above piece:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232304

Stephen J. , August 19, 2017 at 8:06 am

Article of interest at link below
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 18.08.2017 | OPINION
As Russia-Gate Story Stalls, Cue Trump Neo-Nazi Scandal
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/18/as-russia-gate-story-stalls-cue-trump-neo-nazi-scandal.html

Stephen J. , August 19, 2017 at 8:19 am

Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell, 1984

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am

"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am

Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read that book, and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the many conversations which him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar may read 2017, but make no mistake about it we are living in 1984.

I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that would be a great loss. Although, these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings with it new restrictions. It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event brought us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece of information, is covered over with conspiracy nut paper, and there go I.

Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us with our own hard earned taxpayer money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe

Stephen J. , August 19, 2017 at 11:12 am

Hi Joe Tedesky, very true, 1984 is here in 2017, but some are ignorant of the fact. i believe we are "Prisoners of "Democracy"
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
I always enjoy your concise comments.

Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:53 am

Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo op session with his new found friends the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain against your government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that paying your taxes, is your ticket to the complaint window.

What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to delegitimize the results of any election, which would result in the world not honoring your country's election results.

https://criminalbankingmonopoly.wordpress.com

Good conversation, and link sharing Stephen. Joe

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 am

As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.

Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm

Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you make believe you have made bobs.

Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.

Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am

Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with Junior and offered him DNC "dirt". DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more than I am prepared to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information or from whom. The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?

Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am

"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all that happened is that a PR flak (not in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.

That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic, Trump is not Putin.

And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping tree-hugger.

Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm

A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non- contributive remarks
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.

Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false information was fed to the public, large portions were revealed after the election, indicates that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election, but rather intended as use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed she would win. You can read original piece here: https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get

But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the Deep State, probably the CIA, for Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never consider that the powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would insinuate themselves into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest that another article, another one from the New York Times, which tries to explain Hillary suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the article doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she attended the Republican convention. After that she worked as an intern in Congress that summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense, sending wave after wave of B-52s over Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.

Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back then in operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black Panther trial in New Haven. Then a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.

In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on the Yale campus, which holds out the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted and expected her to be leading the charge in 2017.

Here is the NY Times article on Hillary, published in September 2007 to prepare the Times' audience for her initial run for the Presidency in 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=0

Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:13 pm

As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.

Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity "

Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with the evidence "

So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has not yet reached the level at which the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough to force our leaders with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.

That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more dysfunction in govt and more people dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic event that will put us over the line. Or not

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm

Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient information after a month or so at only moderate loss of intelligence asset value, both on the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after this time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss and reveal it, otherwise citizens may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are deceiving them for political purposes.

Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible source, email intercept, or recently dismissed employee or defector already protected; if that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real source must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of public information.
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or location or capability, then modify them enough to make it look like another technology or location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim that the info comes from a distinct source or location, etc.

If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope will improve, then the source is not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy making.

Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm

The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked, you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog -- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the internet repeated the evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing as news anchors. The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the timing of the statue removal shit stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation and other web sites were starting to publish truth about "Russia gate"

Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm

Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM released info on trumps son meeting with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran it to "punish" trump for the Putin meeting.

Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm

Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor ..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact he is bothering to muddy these waters is both flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.

Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am

President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media, politicians in both parties, and monied folks but the way he was attacked and its effects will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder how mindless lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is happening and will likely happen to them.

Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it look like a Russian hack with some "credible" evidence that at least MSM and the masses can swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
33
Print

GR Editor's Note

This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on Global Research in 2014.

In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.

In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of interfering in US politics.

This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.

In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime change in Venezuela and Cuba

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017

******************

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.

(* indicates successful ouster of a government)

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012

Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?

A: Because there's no American embassy there.

Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am

Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth) HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying) about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling a record of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative & ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth

Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm

"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."

– Crooked Hillary

Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm

There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the information was another one of that countries 'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real money – 'bitcoin'.

Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.

All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This also applies to the other two infosec companies who weighed in on the evidence – Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC servers, the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a computer crime.

That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore the only thing the FBI can see on that "certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.

And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who hates Putin and Russia, someone who sees Russian under every PC.

Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm

I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the events unfolded last summer. In fact, from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking about it.

Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any way connects directly back to ANYONE, let alone the Russian government.

Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during Moscow business hours." If you look at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business hours in Ukraine – and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a high-profile hack?

The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE for someone to access high-speed Internet. Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points out, it's hard to get that kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.

Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator specially disavows that requirement. What is important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking from Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times (which he acknowledges could be faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so or even think of doing so.)

The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an entity inserted into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.

And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he has seen or had read to him an FBI report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC documents. And that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those documents or using it to transfer them to Wikileaks.

Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier articles will bury the "DNC hack" story completely.

Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:

1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is no real reason why Russia would hack the DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the election."

If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the entire "Russia influencing the election" story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.

Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may still have hacked the DNC at some point. I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet because of the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second, they wouldn't have left any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to Russia.

Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network (easily done as demonstrated by US penetration testers all the time) or used a wireless connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails. In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack, and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence except perhaps some evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.

Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame Russia for a hack.

It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract basis either to perform hacks or to buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC hackers had to be incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political party in the US.

You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking everything in the US connected to the election, and 2) that they are so incompetent as to leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.

In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is merely attribution to a collection of hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building in China, which if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no individuals or agencies can be reliably identified by attribution.

Instead, what we get is the following:

1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility that the hacker of said target MUST BE a "nation state actor."

2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to target a similar target is ASSUMED to be either the same hacker or associated with the same hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE entities – APT28 and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)

3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."

An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack, and that is now used as justification for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group, when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET of the hack they "assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.

In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge, and/or 2) that it will be interesting, and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the hacker underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.

The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive". Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.

Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained offline that specifically identifies a given organization or individuals, attribution of a specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.

Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor operational security and allowed email addresses and other identifying information that connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a law-enforcement sting.

At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.

Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm

Correction to my post:

"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"

frank scott , August 22, 2017 at 7:41 pm

now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its current issue that reads like a doctoral thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing trump.. hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be convincing to readers of political gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.

[Aug 21, 2017] Bannon Firing Proves Trump is Winging It by Robert W. Merry

To a certain extent Bannon firing was his own foult as perchant for self-promition proved to be quite destructive.
But it was also a stage of Trump conversion into Bush III. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory.
The problem that brought Trump to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff.
And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks doomed to be failure.
Notable quotes:
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com • August 21, 2017

In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough. But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?

It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.

Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence than the current White House occupant.

Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.

He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House, the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis, and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.

Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.

  1. Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border, and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all, according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans. But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe. He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
  2. Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies. He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital interests.
  3. Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.

The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing one.

He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.

In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.

What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers.

And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful governance.

It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected.

But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage. Occident Mortal doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure. Oracle of Kypseli Occident Mortal Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat Oracle of Kypseli Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos Eeyores Enigma Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Crazy Or Not Occident Mortal Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change.
(eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

buttmint Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM ...

all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Oh regional Indian Koba the Dread Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia. Kobe Beef Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

asstrix Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Tallest Skil doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Son of Captain Nemo Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --

DemandSider Son of Captain Nemo Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book, 'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos

Moe Hamhead The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office -- He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

TuPhat Jason T Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Oh regional Indian Scanderbeg Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

[Aug 21, 2017] Trump Declares Open-Ended War in Afghanistan News From Antiwar.com

Aug 21, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Trump Declares Open-Ended War in Afghanistan Trump Abandons 'Instinct to Withdraw'

Jason Ditz Posted on August 21, 2017 Categories News Tags Afghanistan , Trump In his Monday night speech on the Afghan War, President Trump committed the US to an essentially open-ended escalation of the conflict without any specific limitations, while granting commanders broader authority to unilaterally target "the enemy."

What that outcome looks like, or how specifically he plans to get there are anyone's guess. Fox News reported that White House sources told them before the speech that Trump was going to announce 4,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

But President Trump said that the US strategy would be secret, saying the US is removing any timetables for ending the war in Afghanistan. He said that he will not talk publicly about troop numbers in Afghanistan or plans for ongoing military activity there. While arguing that "America's enemies must never know our plans."

Trump's secrecy also means the American public will have no idea how the Afghan War is being prosecuted.

This mirrors the decision to make troop levels in Iraq and Syria officially secret, but is also a much broader commitment. He set the stage for general escalation of an Afghan war that, over the past 16 years, has shown itself to endure through more or less any escalation conceivable. In committing to continue that war until victory, Trump effectively made the war permanent.

Trump presented continuation as both about 9/11, and about how opposed he is to the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq, each presented as a reason not to withdraw, but seemingly each an excuse that's never going to not stand in the way of ending the war.

The broad message of Trump's speech seemed to be that the US wasn't aggressive enough in Afghanistan so far, criticizing President Obama for "micromanaging" the conflict. Trump said he believes that US military victories come from "judgement and expertise of wartime commanders."

Trump gave some lip-service to economic aid for Afghanistan, particularly pushing India to "do more." But he insisted that the US had abandoned nation-building, declaring "we are not nation-building again, we're killing terrorists."

This declaration also gives the impression of a permanent war, claiming 20 distinct terrorist organizations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and vowing to lift restrictions on "our warfighters." He vowed that "no place is out of the reach of American might."

Ultimately, an escalation of 4,000 troops and a re-commitment to the status quo likely would've been much milder than what Trump appears to be proposing. Trump's determination to keep troop levels secret leaves the door open to a series of endless escalations down the road, which the American public are liable to never hear about.

[Aug 21, 2017] Trump To Announce Four More One-Year Wars

Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Afghanistan - Trump To Announce Four More One-Year Wars

This evening Trump will announce a new " path forward " in the occupation of Afghanistan. According to the usual leaks it will be very same path the U.S. has taken for 16 years.

Several thousands soldiers from the U.S. and various NATO countries will (in vane) train the Afghan army. Special Forces and CIA goons will raid this or that family compound on someone's say-so. Bombs will be dropped on whatever is considered a target.

Trump will announce that 1,000 or so troops will be added to the current contingent. About 15,000 foreign troops will be in Afghanistan. About three contractors per each soldier will be additionally deployed.

Trump knows that this "path forward" is nonsense that leads nowhere, that the best option for all foreign troops in Afghanistan is to simply leave:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 21 Nov 2013

We have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Their government has zero appreciation. Let's get out!

But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S. leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for international terrorists?" But few if any international terrorist incident in the "west" were ever organized in Afghanistan. In all recent incidents the culprits were locals.

For the military it is all about optics. The generals do not want to concede that they lost another war. The CIA wants to keep is militarized forces and drones which it justifies through its engagement in Afghanistan. The drug production in Afghanistan, which the U.S. never really tried to suppress, is rumored to finance "black" CIA operations just like it did during the Vietnam war and throughout various South American conflicts. The members of the Afghan government all live off U.S. largess. The war in Afghanistan is a racket paid for with the lives of countless Afghans and U.S. taxpayer money.

Now tightly under control of neo-conservative leaning generals Trump had little chance to make a different decision. He had asked his team for alternatives but none were given to him:

The president told McMaster "to go back to the drawing board," the official said. "But he just kept coming back with the same thing."

Trump's former strategic advisor Steve Bannon promoted an idea of Eric Prince, a shady provider of international mercenaries. Afghanistan would be given to a private for-profit entity comparable to the Brutish East-India Company. That company, with its own large army, robbed India of all possible valuables and nearly became a state of its own. But Prince and Bannon forgot to tell the end of that company's story. It came down after a large mutiny in India defeated its armed forces and had to be bailed out by the government. The end state of an East India Company like entity in Afghanistan would the same as it is now.

Then there is the fairy tale of the mineral rich Afghanistan. $1 trillion of iron, copper, rare-metals and other nice stuff could be picked out of the ground. But in reality the costs of picking minerals in Afghanistan is, for various reasons, prohibitive.

The Bannon/Prince plan was lunatic but it was at least somewhat different than the never changing ideas of the military:

The Defense Secretary [Mattis] has been using this line in meetings: "Mr. President, we haven't fought a 16-year war so much as we have fought a one-year war, 16 times."

That line has already been used five years ago to describe the war on Afghanistan. (It originally describes the 10 year war in Vietnam.) Mattis did not explain why or how that repetitive one year rhythm would now change.

A "new" part of the plan is to put pressure on Pakistan to stop the financing and supplying of Taliban groups. That is not in Pakistan's interest and is not going to happen. The Trump administration wants to hold back the yearly cash payment to the Pakistani military. This has been tried before and the Pakistani response was to close down the U.S. supply route to Afghanistan. An alternative supply route through Russia had been developed but has now been shut down over U.S. hostilities towards that country. The U.S. can not sustain a deployment in Afghanistan without a sea-land route into the country.

The Afghan army is, like the government, utterly corrupt and filled with people who do not want to engage in fighting. More "training" will not change that. The U.S. proxy government is limited to a few larger cities. It claims to control many districts but its forces are often constricted to central compounds while the Taliban rule the countryside. In total the Taliban and associated local war lords hold more than half of the country and continue to gain support. The alleged ISIS derivative in Afghanistan was originally formed out of Pakistani Taliban by the Afghan National Directorate of Security which is under the control of the CIA:

In Nangarhar, over a year ago, the vanguard of the movement was a group of Pakistani militants who had lived there for years as 'guests' of the Afghan government and local people. While initially avoiding attacks on Afghan forces, they made their new allegiances known by attacking the Taleban and taking their territory.

ISIS in Afghanistan, founded as an anti-Taliban force, is just another form of the usual Afghan warlordism.

During 16 years the U.S. failed to set a realistic strategic aim for the occupation of Afghanistan. It still has none. Without political aim the military is deployed in tactical engagements that make no long lasting differences. Any attempts to negotiate some peace in Afghanistan requires extensive engagement with the Taliban, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran. No one in Washington is willing to commit to that.

Trump's likely decision means that the story of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan will continue throughout the next years exactly as it happened during the last 16 years. The decision, once made, is unlikely to change until the next presidential election. The 16 one-year-wars in Afghanistan will become 20 one-year-wars for no perceivable gain.

The only conceivable event that could change the situation is an incident with a large number of U.S. military casualties. That could lead to a groundswell of anti-war sentiment which could press Congress into legislating an end of the war. But are the Taliban interested in achieving that?

Posted by b on August 21, 2017 at 01:54 PM | Permalink

Permafrost | Aug 21, 2017 2:30:10 PM | 1

Another possible ending could be the petro-dollar going south, and the US running low on diesel.
Kalen | Aug 21, 2017 2:57:29 PM | 2
All wars stop at the very moment when no more money could be made out of pain and suffering of the people.
karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 3:03:35 PM | 3
Left unvoiced is the actual strategic reason for the Outlaw US Empire's occupation of Afghanistan: It puts Imperial Stormtroopers smack-dab in the middle of China and Russia's plans for Eurasian economic and eventual political integration while allowing the CIA to reap the benefits of its opium/heroin export program which is used to destabilize nations globally--including the homeland--which fits in quite well with the sole Neolibralcon policy goal of Full Spectrum Domination. As b mentioned, only dialog between regional actors--all of which now have some form of SCO membership--will finally solve the Afghan Problem. Of course, it would be of immense benefit if the pretext for the Outlaw US Empire presence there was proven to be the massive Big Lie that it is, but I don't expect the Truth to become known about until ??? G

Given the strategic reason above, I don't expect the Outlaw US Empire to retreat from Afghanistan until the Neoliberalcons are defeated domestically, which will require a massive Movement within the nation to regain control of the federal government and monetary policy--gaining just the Executive isn't nearly enough as Trump's proven.

Oh, and isn't it just delicious Karma that the USS John McCain was rammed by a tanker? Here's Finnian Cunningham on the current state of McKale's Navy, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708211056656667-us-navy-collision-korea/

psychohistorian | Aug 21, 2017 3:13:34 PM | 4
It is all about 4 more years of ongoing destabilization of the ME

The only solution that those in power want is for all to pledge fealty to the God of Mammon/global private finance.


The only solution for the rest of us if for nations to stop buying US Treasuries that continue to fund this sickness.

karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 3:14:24 PM | 5
OT: For those wondering what happened with Syrian Perspectives, it changed platforms and has a new URL, https://www.syrianperspective.com/

On Topic: It appears Mercouris at the Duran decided to write something similar to b, but that site's new format is still plagued by very long running ad scripts making the content very difficult to read. Can't even copy/paste the URL. What a shame!

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 21, 2017 3:24:06 PM | 6
Sending additional troops to the "graveyard of empires" is a dumb idea. Especially if the Pak supply route is closed.
james | Aug 21, 2017 3:26:24 PM | 7
thanks b.....

make work project........... it never ends.................

"But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S. leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for international terrorists?"

of course this is the rationale for it all - terrorism....

war on communism, war on drugs, war on terrorism....

not sure what they replace terrorism with, so for the time being it will have to be the rationale de jour........

@2 kalen.. propping up the us$, ensuring the continuation of the us$ is indeed paramount..

@5 karlof1... thanks.

JSonofa | Aug 21, 2017 3:34:37 PM | 8
Defund the war machine and piss off the war party. Stop the printing press of paper "money."

Repeal the 16th amendment.

The US Fed thinks that it can manage the healthcare of 320 million Americans while simultaneously, it cannot manage the healthcare of 9 million Veterans.

Repeal the 16th. F*ck em.

ben | Aug 21, 2017 3:38:11 PM | 9
The "Corporate Empire" never leaves, until it extracts what it wants, from whom it wants.
Laguerre | Aug 21, 2017 3:42:18 PM | 10
Waste of time and effort. Nothing will change.
Grieved | Aug 21, 2017 3:55:54 PM | 11
@5 karlof1

I'm not a great fan of the Duran new design, but I can read its stories okay. I think you may need to use Firefox browser and install the AdBlock Plus add-on. It's free and easy. The wonderful thing about Firefox is its built-in Reader View button, which strips all the excess media out of a page and formats just the story itself in a perfectly readable column width, with a nice size font. You can actually lean back and read. It's amazing how this helps comprehension. I often read b's articles and even a lot of the comments this way.

Here's the link for the Mercouris article, which I haven't read yet: 7 reasons why by comparison with the USSR the US is losing in Afghanistan

Christian Chuba | Aug 21, 2017 4:00:34 PM | 12
The alternative would be to find people in the U.S. govt who actually understand the Taliban. You would think that after 16yrs, that we would have developed some expertise on the true structure of Afghanistan.

The only beef we had with the Taliban was that they harbored Al Qaeda. Couldn't we bribe them and let them keep their own country as long as they don't host international terrorists? I don't know the answer to this question but that is the 'new' approach that I'd explore. I recall that the Taliban seemed a bit put off when Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC and asked to review the evidence. They made some reference to not wanting to violate some guest code. Perhaps we were too heavy handed with them.

Curtis | Aug 21, 2017 4:07:36 PM | 13
Doubling down on failure (or insanity by doing the same thing but expecting a different result).
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.
james | Aug 21, 2017 4:17:13 PM | 14
funny hit list.....

The following members of the United Nations have made statements about their recognition of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia[35][36][37][38]:

Afghanistan[36]
Bolivia
Cuba[39]
Kyrgyzstan[40]
Nicaragua[41]
North Korea[42]
Sudan
Syria[36]
Venezuela[36]
Zimbabwe

Christian Chuba | Aug 21, 2017 4:20:20 PM | 15
'We haven't fought a 16 yr. war we have fought the same 1yr war 16 times'.

It is distressing that our core competence is selling each other BS. It reminds me of all of the slick arguments I hear about how woefully underfunded the U.S. military is.

We must have hired Consultants because I've read over a dozen articles with the same format ...
1. As a percent of GDP our military budget is at historic lows (creative accounting, it's closer to 5% of GDP, not the advertised 3%).

2. 50% of our aircraft are not operational, along with other readiness scare stories (so we should reward incompetence?)

3. The military is only 15% of the budget (flat out lie, it's 40% of discretionary spending and owns about that much of the annual debt service that they also don't count. If you eliminated Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our payroll taxes would disappear, not our deficit)

But the argument sounds good and never gets challenged on FOX/CNN.

Perimetr | Aug 21, 2017 4:23:36 PM | 16
Agree with Karlofi, the US will not abandon the $1 trillion per annum heroin industry it has developed in Afghanistan.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91

The banksters take a 20% cut for laundering the money, the rest goes to Langley to fund its many projects.

karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 4:26:04 PM | 17
Grieved @11--

Thanks for your help hints. I was finally able to read the entire article with almost no interruptions. As the title suggests, it's a compare/contrast essay detailing the two different experiences, goals and costs incurred. Mercouris points out that the USSR didn't lose in Afghanistan--it fulfilled its policy goal and left--which is contrary to the West's propaganda on the subject. It's a decent read, but Mercouris, like b, neglects to mention the actual strategic goal of the Outlaw US Empire's invasion and occupation.

Also Grieved, thanks for your thoughtful comments in your reply to me on a previous thread. Liked your comment at The Saker's latest Neocon thread.

Lozion | Aug 21, 2017 5:31:40 PM | 18
@16 Perimetr is spot on.. Projects like manufactured riots and race strife anyone?
nmb | Aug 21, 2017 5:34:42 PM | 19
Trump-establishment common agenda confirmed again through cynically admitting the real reason behind the US invasion in Afghanistan!
Stumpy | Aug 21, 2017 5:42:53 PM | 20
Condoleeza:

" former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that it "made no sense" to expand the military's presence without a new strategy, while Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin put it this way:

"We've tried this before, we've tried to fortify our effort in Afghanistan under Republican and Democratic presidents, and the fact is we're still in a situation where the Taliban controls a massive part of the territory," Durbin told MSNBC in May. "We need to have an honest answer to the question: Will the Afghans ever be in a position where there is less corruption and there is less incompetence and they're able to stand up and defend their own nation? It's time for some honest answers." "

And Donald Trump has the answer tonight? When Durbin says "their own nation", I believe he is referring to the geographic boundaries assigned by Western commerce. That is the failure of understanding, that a central government imposed on the warlord/tribal mosaic that is the Afghan territories is doomed. Rather than troops, as Christian C. suggests @12, sending tons of cash might be more persuasive than arming one band against another. A complete waste of spec ops troops absent a true civil war against a hated tyrant.

Thirdeye | Aug 21, 2017 6:08:27 PM | 21
3 karlof1

The US project in Afghanistan started before the Eurasian project got going. Afghanistan is is peripheral to the Eurasian project for the time being; it is currently economically unimportant and will remain so until considerable development of infrastructure in the region takes place. Having the resources is one thing. Having the infrastructure to develop those resources is quite another.

Krollchem | Aug 21, 2017 6:22:16 PM | 22
Plan "B" for Afghanistan will be to let a corporation lead the war:
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/03/erik-princes-dark-plan-for-afghanistan-military-occupation-for-profit-not-security/

The US proceeded with its war in Afghanistan despite warnings by knowledgeable Western soldiers familiar with the region:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1357880/Last-Briton-at-frontier-will-not-be-moved.html

This leads US to "THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL"
Sir John Glubb
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Krollchem | Aug 21, 2017 6:39:54 PM | 23
This sums up the US troop surge in Afghanistan:

"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."*
~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1935
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

karlof1 | Aug 21, 2017 6:42:44 PM | 24
Thirdeye @21--

Total Vision 2010--the policy paper that announced the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire, nee New World Order--was published in 1996, and the plan to invade Afghanistan was put into motion about 5 months prior to the "justification event" on 911. Total Vision 2020 is the latest update to the initial policy goal and was published during Bu$hCo.

The Eurasian vision was begun during Deng's years as China's leader and has accelerated ever since.

dh | Aug 21, 2017 6:44:20 PM | 25
@21 Think of the vast amounts of equipment, weapons, fuel, food, bottled water etc. consumed daily. It all has to be flown in or moved across Russia by rail (do they still do that?) and the troops and contractors have to be rotated in and out. Afghanistan has considerable economic importance.
PavewayIV | Aug 21, 2017 6:44:33 PM | 26
I'll attempt to read between the lines for those outside the US trying to understand all this:

DynCorp's annual military contractor revenue from the US Government is reportedly more than Germany's entire defense budget of around $42 billion (€36 billion). Only a few billion from Afghanistan, but business there could use a shot in the arm.

Billionaire psychopath Stephen Feinberg controls DynCorp, bathed in the river of blood/profits from Afghanistan (among others). He doesn't like the US military's performance there - it's hurting business. Feinberg wants to fire US Afghanistan commander Gen. John Nicholson (via his lapdog Trump, of course) but that alone will not help DynCorp much.

DynCorp is missing out on the lucrative combat merc market in Afghanistan. Most of the military contractors it supplies are support, and only a few 'security' types are armed. Feinberg knows supplying actual combat mercs is where DynCorpo will reap the real profits.

Problem for Feinberg is the US military hates mercs and won't use them much (mostly because mercs are homicidal psychopaths). Solution? Why stop at firing Nicholson? Fire ALL the US military commanders in Afghanistan and replace them with obedient, profitable dual-citizen DynCorp commanders. The Mini-Me US President Jared Kushner just loves this plan. Maybe he gets a few DynCorp stock options out of the deal.

Some other issues:

Outsourcing the US Military might wake up a few of the intellectual lepar military commanders to their duty to defend the US Constitution. US Military coup?
Solution: Mad Dog Mattis, of course: "Obey your Commander in Chief's unconstitutional orders, you insolent bastards! Constitutional law and critical thinking is way above a general's pay grade - leave that to CNN. Train your merc replacements in Afghanistan and shut the hell UP!

Title 10 of the US Legal Code on the military prohibits using mercs in combat
Solution: Screw the law - that's why DynCorp bribes Congress. Rather than using illegal Title 10 military contractors in Afghanistan, Congress and Trump will classify their activities from now on under Title 50: intelligence activities. See? Nothing at all to do with military operations.

The US military doesn't control the current CIA spooks and won't be able to control the new DynCorp mercs
Solution: If all Afghanistan mercs are reclassified as Title 50 spooks, then they report to the CIA and its chain of command. The US military in Afghanistan will not and doesn't need to control them - that's the point.

Who will command US troops if the military commanders are sent packing?
Solution: The Afghani slaughter will become a CIA operation, not a US military one. It will complement the CIA's booming opium 'fund-raising' business there. US combat troops will just be assigned to the CIA operation (combat, not poppy farming). Give all the US soldiers sent there some kind of special berets (anything but green) and call them Special Forces. Shhh! They're now involved in secret spook operations. Don't ask any questions.

How can the CIA possibly command so many mercs and US soldiers in Afghanistan?
Solution: That's where ex-Blackwater war criminal Eric Prince and his private UAE-based army and air force come in. The CIA will simply hire contractor commanders for 'their' command structure that will replace the current US military one. Whether Prince rebrands his current commanders as DynCorp or uses some other ruse, he can flesh out the line staff from his current merc army. The CIA will chose all the senior contractor commanders who will then be hired by whatever DynCorp names that business.

Who will be the overall commander of military ops in Afghanistan going forward if Gen. Nicholson is canned?
Soluton: Trump will choose an overall commander, reportedly with the title of viceroy . My jaw hit the floor at that one. Here's Wikipedia:

"...A viceroy is a regal official who runs a country, colony, city, province, or sub-national state, in the name of and as the representative of the monarch of the territory. The term derives from the Latin prefix vice-, meaning "in the place of" and the French word roi, meaning "king"..."

Chief DynCorp psychopath and dual-US/Israeli citizen Stephen Feinberg himself is interested in the job according to Prince. An investment banker commanding psychopath mercs slaughtering Afghanis in the name of the US - imagine that. Plus, Afghanistan is right next door to Iran - convenient for US invasions and such. Oh, that's right. DynCorp is a business. They'll gladly invade Iran for anyone with a big enough bag of shekels.

"On your knees and bow your heads, Afghani peons! All hail the supreme commander of all Afghanistan, Viceroy Stephen Feinberg."

Surely Trump can't sell this plan to the US public. They're pretty dim, but this scheme is just over the top!
Solution: Think again. This will be spun as a mere 1000 US combat troop surge... oh, and a few contractors. Intelligence contractors, not mercs. The details of who they are and what they will be doing is classified. Just never mind them. And as soon as US military commanders and troops have their replacements trained up, they'll get to come home. Yay! Imagine the CNN video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to his loving family. JOY!

But what about the utter debasement of the US Constitution and myriad of war crimes the US government will commit by doing something so insane?
Solution: Buy DynCorp stock and shut the hell up about the American's dumb-assed Constitution. Besides, who are you to question the Viceroy?

Piotr Berman | Aug 21, 2017 6:47:21 PM | 27
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.

Posted by: Curtis | Aug 21, 2017 4:07:36 PM | 13

There are also success stories. The training program in Mali had good students and bad students. Good students joined the rebellion of the Tuareg and clobbered the bad ones. Bad ones were pissed to be sent by civilian government to the scorching sands of Sahara and made a coup. The Tuareg had enough weapons from the fallen Libya to engage in infighting, temporarily won by the group that claimed ISIS affiliation. Each group had some degree of success.

Common theme is that USA offers no idea that would fire up troops under training. Did they try "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" (the catch-phrase of the comic-book character Superman). Or Here I come to save the day! I think that the crux is economic development and decrease in abject poverty, but does anyone in Administration have an idea how that could be done?

dh | Aug 21, 2017 6:52:57 PM | 28
@26 "Imagine the CNN video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to his loving family. JOY!"

I can see it already. He will have his faithful dog with him that he rescued from a ruined Afghan village. His faithful translator unfortunately wasn't so lucky.

Perimetr | Aug 21, 2017 7:00:22 PM | 29
RE: PavewayIV | Aug 21, 2017 6:44:33 PM | 26

Thanks for the update, will pass this on to friends in D.C. A plan that Hillary would certainly approve of . . .

fast freddy | Aug 21, 2017 7:51:58 PM | 30
Just as Obama was a fraud, Trump is likewise a fraud.
Forest | Aug 21, 2017 8:12:17 PM | 31
I think it just boils down to Trump just wanted to look behind the curtain.

Get to see the program...

Willy2 | Aug 21, 2017 8:16:42 PM | 32
- The warlords are NOT "on the same page" as the Taliban !!!! The afghan people are/were abused by the warlords, were suffering under the warlords. The warlords performed henous crimse against the afghan population.
- The afghan people were treated better by the Taliban than by the warlords. That allowed the Taliban to make a comeback in the 1990s. But it also meant that the afghans suffered under the religious islamic fanaticism of that same Taliban.
- With the US invasion the Taliban was defeated and allowed the warlords to make a comeback and now the afghan people were suffereing from/under the warlords again. The warlords were needed by the US military to protect the transports that bring in all the goods that the US military, other foreign troops and all mercenaries need to continue their "occupation" of Afghanistan. Without those supplies those military forces will be "left hanging out to dry".
- Generals like David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal were both in command in Afghanistan and recognized this hopeless situation and left their afghan post early. McChrystal retired and Petraeus became director of the CIA

[Aug 21, 2017] The Future Of The Third World

Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

The Future Of The Third World Zero Hedge Tyler Durden Aug 20, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Jayant Bhandari via Acting-Man.com, Decolonization

The British Empire was the largest in history. At the end of World War II Britain had to start pulling out from its colonies. A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech, and other liberties offered by the empire.

The colors represent the colonies of various nations in 1945, and the colonial borders of that time – click to enlarge.

After the departure of the British -- as well as the French, German, Belgians, and other European colonizers -- most of the newly "independent" countries suffered rapid decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, massive social strife, and a fall in standards of living. An age of anti-liberalism and tyranny descended on these former colonies. They rightly became known as third-world countries.

An armchair economist would have assumed that the economies of these former colonies, still very backward and at a very low base compared to Europe, would grow at a faster rate. Quite to the contrary, as time went on, their growth rates stayed lower than those of the West.

Socialism and the rise of dictators were typically blamed for this -- at least among those on the political Right. This is not incorrect, but it is a merely proximate cause. Clarity might have been reached if people had contemplated the reason why Marxism and socialism grew like weeds in the newly independent countries.

Was There a Paradigm Shift in the 1980s?

According to conventional wisdom, the situation changed after the fall of the socialist ringleader, the USSR, in the late 1980s. Ex-colonized countries started to liberalize their economies and widely accepted democracy, leading to peace, the spread of education and equality, the establishment of liberal, independent institutions. Massive economic growth ensued and was sustained over the past three decades. The "third world" was soon renamed "emerging markets."

Alas, this is a faulty narrative. Economic growth did pick up in these poor countries, and the rate of growth did markedly exceed that of the West, but the conventional narrative confuses correlation with causality. It tries to fit events to ideological preferences, which assume that we are all the same, that if Europeans could progress, so should everyone else, and that all that matters are correct incentives and appropriate institutions.

The beginning and end of the Soviet communist era in newspaper headlines. The overthrow of Kerensky's interim government was the start of Bolshevik rule. To be precise, the Bolsheviks took over shortly thereafter, when they disbanded the constituent assembly in in early 1918 and subsequently gradually did the same to all non-Bolshevik Soviets that had been elected. A little more than seven decades later, the last Soviet Bolshevik leader resigned. It is worth noting that by splitting the Russian Federation from the Ukraine and Belorussia, Yeltsin effectively removed Gorbachev from power – the latter was suddenly president of a country that no longer existed and chairman of a party that was declared illegal in Russia. [PT] – click to enlarge.

The claimed liberalization in the "emerging markets" after the collapse of the USSR did not really happen. Progress was always one step forward and two steps back. In some ways, government regulations and repression of businesses in the "emerging markets" have actually gotten much worse. Financed by increased taxes, governments have grown by leaps and bounds -- not for the benefit of society but for that of the ruling class -- and are now addicted to their own growth.

The ultimate underpinnings of the so-called emerging markets haven't changed. Their rapid economic progress during the past three decades -- a one-off event -- happened for reasons completely different from those assumed by most economists. The question is: once the effect of the one-off event has worn off, will emerging markets revert to the stagnation, institutional degradation, and tyranny that they had leaped into soon after the European colonizers left?

The One-Off Event: What Actually Changed in the 1980s

In the "emerging markets" (except for China) synchronized favorable economic changes were an anomaly. They resulted in large part from the new, extremely cheap telephony that came into existence (a result of massive cabling of the planet implemented in the 1980s) and the subsequent advent of the new technology of the internet. The internet enabled instantaneous transfer of technology from the West and as a consequence, unprecedented economic growth in "emerging markets."

Meanwhile, a real cultural, political, and economic renaissance started in China. It was an event so momentous that it changed the economic structure not just of China, but of the whole world. Because China is seen as a communist dictatorship, it fails to be fully appreciated and respected by intellectuals who are obsessed with the institution of democracy.

But now that the low-hanging fruit from the emergence of the internet and of China (which continues to progress) have been plucked, the "emerging markets" (except, again, for China) are regressing to their normal state: decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, and social strife. They should still be called the "third world."

There are those who hold China in contempt for copying Western technology, but they don't understand that if copying were so easy, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia would have done the same. They were, after all, prepared for progress by their colonial history.

European colonizers brought in the rule of law and significantly reduced the tribal warfare that was a matter of daily routine in many of the colonies -- in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Britain and other European nations set up institutional structures that allowed for the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital. Western-style education and democracy were initiated. But this was helpful in a very marginal way.

What is Wrong with the Third World

For those who have not traveled and immersed themselves in formerly colonized countries, it is hard to understand that although there was piping for water and sewage in Roman days, it still isn't available for a very large segment of the world's population. The wheel has existed for more than 5,000 years, but a very large number of people continue to carry water in pots on their heads.

Lead piping supplying water to homes already existed in Roman days, 2000 years ago.

The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel, which is more than 5,000 years old

There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel, even if they went to school. It is not the absence of technology or money that is stopping these people from starting to use some basic forms of technology. It is something else.

Sir Winston Churchill, the war-time Prime Minister of Britain, talking about the future of Palestine said:

"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race has come in and taken their place."

Cigar-puffing British war-time PM Winston Churchill was as politically incorrect as they come. If he were alive today, he would probably be labeled the newest Hitler by the press and spend 90% of his time apologizing. Perhaps we shouldn't mention this, but there are many Churchill monuments dotted across Europe and one can be found in Washington DC as well (alert readers will notice that a decidedly non-triggered Washington Post fondly remembered Churchill as an "elder statesman" a mere 10 months ago; rest assured that won't stop the social justice warrior brigade if they decide to airbrush him out of history). Just to make this clear, your editor is not exactly the biggest fan of the man who traded away half of Europe to Stalin because he felt he could "trust the Soviet communist government" and who was clearly a tad too enamored of war, a characteristic Robert Kaplan described in his strident, amoral pro-war screed Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos as follows: "Churchill's unapologetic warmongering arose not from a preference for war, but from a breast-beating Victorian sense of imperial destiny " Neither the breast-beating nor the sense of imperial destiny are really our thing, but we tip our hat to the man's utter lack of political correctness and his associated willingness to offend all and sundry with a nigh Trumpian alacrity and determination. [PT]

On Islam, he said:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist "

Talking about India he famously said:

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

A remark often attributed to Churchill, although this remains unverified, has certainly stood the test of time so far:

"If independence is granted to India, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day will come when even air and water will be taxed in India."

Europeans of that time clearly knew that there was something fundamentally different between the West and the rest, and that the colonies would not survive without the pillars and the cement European management provided.

With the rise of political correctness this wisdom was erased from our common understanding – but it is something that may well return to haunt us in the near future, as the third world fails to fulfill expectations, while people who immigrate to Europe, Canada, Australia and the US from there fail to assimilate.

The Missing Underpinnings: Reason And All That Depends On It

Until now, the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong.

The cart has been put in front of the horse. It is institutions that emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around. And cultural change is a process taking millennia, perhaps even longer. As soon as Europeans quit their colonies, the institutional structures they left started to crumble.

Alas, it takes a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college and a quarter of a million dollar salary at the World Bank or the IMF to not understand what the key issue with development economics and institutional failures is: the missing ingredient in the third world was and is the concept of objective, impartial reason – the basis of laws and institutions that protect individual rights.

This concept of reason took 2,500 years to develop and get infused into the culture, memes, and genes of Europeans -- a difficult process that, even in Europe, was never fully completed. European institutions were at their root products of this concept.

A justly famous quote by Thomas Paine (a prolific writer with a side job as a founding father and revolutionary). Paine was deeply suspicious of self-anointed authorities, both of the secular and clerical variety, who in turn regarded him as dangerous. His writings inter alia provoked a so-called "pamphlet war" in Britain (it would be best if all wars were conducted via pamphlets). [PT]

Despite massive efforts by missionaries, religious and secular, and of institutions imposed on poor countries, reason failed to get transmitted. Whatever marginal improvement was achieved over 200 to 300 years of colonization is therefore slowly but surely undone.

Without reason, subsidiary concepts such as equality before the law, compassion and empathy won't operate. Irrational societies simply cannot maintain institutions representing the rule of law and fairness. The consequence is that they cannot evolve or even maintain institutions the European colonizers left behind.

Any institutions imposed on them -- schools, armies, elections, national executives, banking and taxation systems -- must mutate to cater to the underlying irrationality and tribalism of the third world.

Western Institutions Have Mutated

Education has become a dogma in "emerging markets", not a tool; it floats non-assimilated in the minds of people lacking objective reason. Instead of leading to creativity and critical thinking, it is used for propaganda by demagogues.

Without impartial reason, democracy is a mere tribal, geographical concept, steeped in arrogance. All popular and "educated" rhetoric to the contrary, I can think of no country in the non-western world that did well after it adopted "democracy."

The spread of nationalism (which to a rational mind is about the commonality of values) has created crises by unifying people along tribal lines. The most visible example is provided by events in the Middle East, but the basic problem is the same in every South Asian and African country and in most of South America.

India, the geographical entity I grew up in, was rapidly collectivized under the flag and the national anthem. It has the potential to become the Middle East on steroids, once Hindutava (Hindu nationalism) has become deeply rooted in society.

Assessing the Current Predicament

In Burma, a whiff of democracy does not seem to have inhibited a genocide perpetrated by Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya. Thailand (which was not colonized in a strictly political sense) has gone silent, but its crisis continues.

Turkey and Malaysia, among the better of these backward societies, have embarked on a path of rapid regression to their medieval pasts. South Africa, which not too long ago was considered a first-world country, got rid of apartheid only to end up with something even worse.

The same happened with Venezuela, which was among the richer countries of the world in the not-too-distant past. It is ready to implode, a fate that may befall Brazil as well one day. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and East Timor are widely acknowledged to be in a mess, and are getting worse by the day.

Indonesia took a breather for a few years and is now once again in the thrall of fanaticism. India is the biggest democracy, so its problems are actively ignored by the Western press, but they won't be for long, as India continues to evolve toward a police state.

Botswana was seen as one of the countries with the fastest and longest-lasting economic growth. What was ignored was the fact that this rather large country has a very small population, which benefited hugely from diamonds and other natural resources. The top political layer of Botswana is still a leftover from the British. The local culture continues to corrode what was left by them, and there are clear signs that Botswana is past its peak.

Part of the central business district in Gaborone, Botswana. Long time readers may recall an article we posted about 2.5 years ago: " Botswana – Getting it Right in Africa ". We are not sure if much has changed since then, but it is worth recalling that Botswana started out as the third-poorest country in Africa when it became independent in 1966 and is today one the richest. The very small population (by African standards) combined with the large income the country obtains from diamond mining no doubt played a role in this, but being rich in natural resources means very little per se . Botswana never fell for Marxism. When the country gained independence, its political leadership adopted democracy and free markets and never looked back. Botswana is a very homogenous society in terms of religious and tribal affiliations, which differentiates the country from most other former colonial territories in Africa. From our personal – admittedly by now a bit dated – experience, we can state that Botswana is the only African country in which one is unlikely to encounter any corruption – not even the lowliest government minion will ask for bribes as far as we could tell (in many African countries, officials begin demanding bribes the moment one wants to cross the border). Considering all that, we are slightly more hopeful about Botswana, but it is not an island. Deteriorating conditions in neighboring countries may well prove contagious at some point. [PT]

Papua New Guinea was another country that was doing reasonably well before the Australians left. It is now rapidly regressing to its tribal, irrational, and extremely violent norms, where for all practical purposes rape is not even considered a crime.

Conclusion: A Vain Hope

The world may recognize most of the above, but it sees these countries' problems as isolated events that can be corrected by further impositions of Western institutions, under the guidance of the UN or some such international (and therefore "non-colonialist") organization.

Amusingly, our intellectual climate -- a product of political correctness -- is such that the third world is nowadays seen as the backbone of humanity's future economic growth. Unfortunately, so-called emerging markets are probably headed for a chaotic future. The likeliest prospect is that these countries will continue to cater to irrational forces, particularly tribalism, and that they will consequently cease to exist, disintegrating into much smaller entities.

As the tide of economic growth goes out with the final phase of plucking the free gift of internet technology nearing its end, their problems will resurface rapidly – precisely when the last of those who were trained under the colonial system are sent to the "dustbin of history".

your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM

Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage.

Occident Mortal -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM

It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.

Oracle of Kypseli -> Occident Mortal , Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM

I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat -> Oracle of Kypseli , Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User -> DjangoCat , Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos -> Eeyores Enigma , Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Son of Thor -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 6:43 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobproplan.com%3A68UoF1LgzM-Yo3S...

Diatom -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 8:53 AM

John Perkins books people...

Crazy Or Not -> Occident Mortal , Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

Omen IV -> Occident Mortal , Aug 21, 2017 9:10 AM

"institutions emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around"

There is no solution to an average IQ of 70 and the culture that results from that fact.

The only solution is $1,000 in return for a tubal ligation or vasectomy - 1,000,000 per day until completed

Oh regional Indian -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:19 PM

That zionist bastard churchill was not prognosticating about india, he was merely telling the world what they were going to do, ie., leave the country in the hands of rouges and rascals.... who have ruled and looted and destroyed India for their city of london masters ever since.

It's the joos who hate indians and of course churchill wasa closet joo...

https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/whither-india/

SethPoor -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 20, 2017 9:50 PM

Are closet Jews circumcised?

Koba the Dread -> SethPoor , Aug 21, 2017 1:41 AM

If they remain in the closet, they are certainly circumspect.

buttmint -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM

...all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Koba the Dread -> buttmint , Aug 21, 2017 1:45 AM

Hunches are like hunchbacks: I don't want either one of them to ring my bells. After over fifty years of visiting and doing business in India, I go no more. While I love the people there, the country has become an abyss I no longer wish to stare into.

Oh regional Indian -> Koba the Dread , Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.

Kobe Beef -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM

Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

misnomer00 -> Kobe Beef , Aug 21, 2017 7:09 AM

Aryan is a word found only in sanskrit and no other indo euro language so you can go and suck some aryan dick

Kobe Beef -> misnomer00 , Aug 21, 2017 10:17 AM

Yes, Sanskrit is an Aryan language. There are a whole host of others, owing to The White Man's far-ranging conquest of primitive hominids. Or homos, in your case, cocksucker. Maybe your great great 15 grandmother appeared human enough to serve as a concubine.

And the Buddha had blue eyes.

Yet here you are trying to insult a White Man,

on the White Man's tech,

in the White Man's language.

Bixnood, faggot. You don't matter, and never did.

Another regiona... -> Kobe Beef , Aug 21, 2017 1:05 PM

Sanskrit is an aryan language? Then explain to me one thing. The rig veda (the oldest agreed upon text written in sanskrit) is centered around worshipping the river saraswati. And the river saraswati dried upon before/around 1900 B.C and aryans 'came' to india in 1700 B.C. Second....if sanskrit was foreign in origin, why havent we found anything equivalent to sanskrit in the 'aryan' nazi homelands? Indus valley civilisation had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, planned streets, sewage systems that took sewage away from individual homes out of the city. No civilisation that i am aware of had that at that time. Dont believe me? Read up about indus valley civilisation. They had it right until 'aryans' came. And then india went back to mud huts and shitting on streets.

As for buddha having blue eyes. turquoise was used to represent ancient famous people as it could be used to represent 'eyes' as it looked like 'eyes'. Thats why torqouise was used. And torqoise only comes in blue and white not in black and white even if it does its very rare. Blue and white is more easily available. That is why it was used. So it doesnt necessairly mean buddha or other famouse people's pictures or statues who had blue torqoise representing their eyers.....had blue eyes in real life.

asstrix -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Another regiona... -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 4:16 AM

Have you read the email i sent you?

Another regiona... -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 2:50 AM

I sent a very important email to your email address 66zoltan, read it. Trust me its worth your time.

Tallest Skil -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Radical Marijuana -> doctor10 , Aug 21, 2017 12:08 AM

The main obstacle to adopting superior memes is that those require Superior murder systems to back them up ...

Son of Captain Nemo , Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper"!... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him!

DemandSider -> Son of Captain Nemo , Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,

'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos!

Moe Hamhead -> The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office! He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

DjangoCat -> The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 10:06 PM

Read em and weep.

Advoc8tr -> The Cooler King , Aug 21, 2017 12:40 AM

Make that a billion + 1 ... cryptos are the new wheel, pipe, internet.

Rebelrebel7 , Aug 20, 2017 9:31 PM

It looks like someone put the teachers in charge of Wikipedia! It used to be a very accurate source of information! I have recently been finding extreme errors on it and never have until about a month ago! I believe that universities feel threatened by It! This info please chart is correct and the Wikipedia chart is incorrect!

https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/us-government/composit...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Haitian Snackout -> Rebelrebel7 , Aug 20, 2017 10:34 PM

It is and always has been a front. But like many other things, it contains the lie and the truth together. The lie at the top of the page and the truth at the bottom. See if you can take it from there. That's the only clue I will offer today. Best of luck!

Rebelrebel7 -> Haitian Snackout , Aug 20, 2017 11:25 PM

Well, it wasn't that way previously, however, the lie on top and truth on the bottom would be congruent with the way that the establishment and media operate, without question!

Koba the Dread -> Rebelrebel7 , Aug 21, 2017 1:50 AM

Pal, if you never found errors in Wikipedia until a month ago, I must presume that you started to learn to read about a month ago.

Question: If one is dead dumb stupid and ignorant, how would one know whether a Wikipedia article is true or false?

Farmerz , Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

I'm making over 7k a month selling new lead free head jugs to turd worlders.

Jason T , Aug 20, 2017 9:49 PM

WOW... excellent post!

TuPhat -> Jason T , Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

Koba the Dread -> TuPhat , Aug 21, 2017 1:53 AM

How can you say that. Some toad earlier in the comments said he is making 7k a month from the internet. Doubting him is like doubting a Wikipedia article.

Entitled_TD , Aug 20, 2017 9:56 PM

Patronizing views on these "3rd world" areas or whatever you may call them...Whatever you say and no matter if you are 100% right about the differences in culture, there is no escaping the fact that these people were "fine" before europeans came along and fucked them up. Cultural relativism is 100% true in this case. Doesn't matter if they were raping babies or whatever, that is their culture and has nothing to do with ours. It was our bullshit christianity and culture that gave us the bullshit rationale to destroy whatever existing cultures we found. So what if they wouldn't have come up with the wheel, plumbing, or the internet - that gave europeans no right to do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. Hard truth for you pos ZHers to swallow, but no way around it. And the funny thing is now you have the gall to say that these other cultures are destroying ours! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Payback is a Bitch!

armageddon addahere -> Entitled_TD , Aug 20, 2017 11:27 PM

So you must be happy we corrected the error by leaving, more than 50 years ago. And now they have gone back to being "fine".

Advoc8tr -> Entitled_TD , Aug 21, 2017 12:49 AM

How do you figure that conclusion ? In THEIR cultures 'might makes right' so by invading and subjugating "we" were playing by their rules. It is hypocritical on our part but only because we deny our history and the reality of superiority (in terms of industrialisation and military strength etc) in preference for politically correct feel-good lies.

Yen Cross , Aug 20, 2017 9:59 PM

Hopefully Bill Gates fossilizes in his doomsday bunker.

DjangoCat , Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat! The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence"! Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Scanderbeg , Aug 20, 2017 10:28 PM

Of course he omits the most important reason. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

They are simply dumber than whites and E. Asians. Inbreeding is common in ME countries and Pakistan for example has an average IQ of around 70. In Sub Saharan Africa it is only 65 which means they are effectively retarded.

I read a story recently that a tanker overturned on the road in Pakistan and several hundred people were blown up while trying to siphon the gas.

Now that's fucking stupid. Something like that would never happen in a Western country.

Every presumption of SJW's is based on insane lie that all groups and races are intrinsicly equal intellectually. This is clearly not the case though of course there are some exceptions.

The left wanted to crucify the geneticist James Watson merely for suggesting this was the case.

Oh regional Indian -> Scanderbeg , Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great kowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (ZEro came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

Scanderbeg -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 20, 2017 11:08 PM

We don't need any tips from people who are still figuring out how to poo in the loo dindu. Come back and complain about western medicine when you have a real problem and you'll be begging for it. The third world is lucky we humor them. The insane population growth is because of bleeding hearts supplying food and medicine to places like Africa. The west has been dominating the world and international trade since the late 1400's. Most technology is spread through diffusion and the west proved to be the best and most open society to synthesize new ideas. That being said western culture is based in the Greco Roman intellectual tradition and Christianity. It has nothing to do with the your barbaric country which the British defeated and colonized easily.

IQ differences by race and region are a scientific fact and that data is easily available. Even India which is considered "smart" by most laymen is around 80 where as the average on Western countries is around 100.

[Aug 21, 2017] Why Explaining US Internal Strife Through Russian Influence Is Lazy and Unhelpful by Alexey Kovalev

Notable quotes:
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
Aug 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
August 19, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating. Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.

Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing something wrong.

By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy

On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist, neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.

As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions". The most egregious example is Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch is the most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people, with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals, events and institutions) be investigated.

Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant Molly McKew and Jim Ludes of the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia." These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections" or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.

Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.

So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon", this connection is often enough to be declared the smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .

Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor" and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.

In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific, obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw was Dugin's interview where he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department, were promptly fired after a major media scandal.

Later, Dugin was quite unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing, reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared from the network's website.

Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations, it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early 20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.

Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies, intensified efforts to strengthen those links .

A trove of leaked emails released by the hacker group Shaltai Boltai ("Humpty Dumpty") in December 2014 did indeed uncover a sinister plot to place Russia in the centre of a wide-ranging alliance of right-wing, far-right, pro-life, pro-"family-values", hardcore Christian and other similar organisations in Europe and both Americas. But there's little evidence that anything resembling the coveted "Black International" ever came to fruition. Only temporary, tactical alliances have been more or less successful, aimed at promoting shared common interests -- such as Italy's pro-Kremlin Lega Nord party lobbying for lifting EU's sanctions against Russia -- or values.

In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious right.

Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist" Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement, and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.

There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil -- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated questions.

Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.

[Aug 21, 2017] A good piece that gathers together the different strands of Western imperialism.

Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Temporarily Sane | Aug 20, 2017 11:55:22 PM | 25

A good piece that gathers together the different strands of Western imperialism.

The story of Charlottesville was written in blood in the Ukraine

The only real quibble I have is with the (very loaded) term "white supremacy". I would change it to "cultural supremacy" or "Western supremacy". As Barack Obama and others have demonstrated, non-white people are welcome to join the Imperial Empire Club so long as they accept the membership terms. Pale faces who reject the Club charter or cannot afford the membership dues are deemed by the elite to be much lower than a more conformist darker skinned applicant. Cf "basket of deplorables"

[Aug 20, 2017] Whats the purpose of the recent escalation of Afghan War ?

Notable quotes:
"... The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 20, 2017 3:55:12 AM | 96

What's the purpose of the "escalation"? Why escalate in Afghanistan? What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?

The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan.

Afghanistan is at the border of this giant Eurasian political, economic, and security organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation#/media/File:SCO_(orthographic_projection).svg

[Aug 20, 2017] Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise

Notable quotes:
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise. The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.

The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.

By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr. Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the deadly violence needed to be amended.

Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr. Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.

"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr. Kelly.

[Aug 20, 2017] The chattering political classes have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. They use identity politics to discredit his base.

The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

doug , 17 August 2017 at 04:54 PM

The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies are increasingly uncertain of their future.

The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch. Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are no longer so constrained.

It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats.

Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.

So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans to go along.

The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.

In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.

turcopolier , 17 August 2017 at 05:19 PM
kerim,

Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.

There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.

That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win" Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl

Tyler , 17 August 2017 at 05:30 PM
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
Murali -> LeeG... , 17 August 2017 at 05:38 PM
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person).

I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with Hope!

AK -> Dr.Puck... , 17 August 2017 at 06:27 PM
Dr. Puck,

The calls have begun:

That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely find more.

BillWade , 17 August 2017 at 06:47 PM
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently.

I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others, no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of a different way to prepare for the future.

A.I.Schmelzer , 17 August 2017 at 07:20 PM
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...

I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts.

But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor.

As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically. There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land. This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.

That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.

As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a 100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.

I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings, I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue. Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.

Haralambos -> turcopolier ... , 17 August 2017 at 07:29 PM
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot. I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness. I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the Reconstruction and carpetbagging.

I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking up their case in regard to free-speech: http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz

I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.

Fred -> Lars... , 17 August 2017 at 07:36 PM
Lars,

"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."

I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.

They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary: Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Seamus Padraig -> Dr.Puck... , 17 August 2017 at 07:40 PM
"I know of no call by anybody to remove all statues of the slaveholders. Please edify."

Well, it appears that Al Sharpton is now in favor of defunding the Jefferson Memorial. That's close, isn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4XKIX1bs4&feature=youtu.be&t=5

VietnamVet , 17 August 2017 at 08:32 PM
PT

The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.

On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election.

The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.

The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening.

James , 17 August 2017 at 09:32 PM
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.

I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist (or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.

Jack , 17 August 2017 at 09:56 PM
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.

What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving.

Cvillereader -> turcopolier ... , 17 August 2017 at 10:17 PM
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public settings.

LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for mental health evaluation.

This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.

luxetveritas , 17 August 2017 at 10:45 PM
Chomsky: "As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."

"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive."

"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."

Bill H , 18 August 2017 at 02:02 AM
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault.

There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.

CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did, "they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.

The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election.

Old Microbiologist -> Lars... , 18 August 2017 at 03:53 AM
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which were violent and this response was no different.

However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.

So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left. I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others, are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.

AK -> Richardstevenhack ... , 18 August 2017 at 04:02 AM
Richardstevenshack,

Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:

" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others. It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head who have something you want. "

First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms, this is the ethos driving the radical Left.

Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization" is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.

Old Microbiologist -> FourthAndLong... , 18 August 2017 at 04:12 AM
Not as significant but along a similar trend to re-write history is this pastor asking Chicago mayor Emmanuel to rename parks named for Presidents because they were also slave owners. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/inevitable-chicago-pastor-demands-washington-name-be-removed-from-park-because-of-slavery-ties/
AK -> Tyler... , 18 August 2017 at 04:33 AM
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would do well to take their warnings seriously.

If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.

You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep at night.

If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating, and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail, you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty, and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win, and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen. It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.

The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate burning it all down.

[email protected] -> rick... , 18 August 2017 at 07:19 AM
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as "a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor said:

As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while the decision may not be mine to make...

It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course, the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky, are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant racial ideology, symbols, and flags.

Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side, is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free world.

Just a few I've seen....

James F , 18 August 2017 at 07:29 AM
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/ . That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which followed it. That is tragic.
Ishmael Zechariah -> Dr.Puck... , 18 August 2017 at 08:14 AM
Dr. Puck,
Do you agree w/ this elected representative's statement: ""I hope Trump is assassinated!" Missouri state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, wrote during a morning Facebook exchange, referring to Republican President Donald Trump."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chappelle-nadal-posts-deletes-facebook-post-hoping-for-trump-s/article_406059d6-1aa4-52fc-89ee-2a6a69baaf2e.html
Ishmael Zechariah
Kooshy -> Richardstevenhack ... , 18 August 2017 at 09:21 AM
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump' presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him, possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of to be same.
Croesus -> doug... , 18 August 2017 at 09:52 AM
Netanyahu is under pressure for failing to speak out forcefully against Trump

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/benjamin-netanyahu-resists-calls-to-denounce-trumps-response-to-charlottesville/

Bibi has keen political skills. He hasn't lasted this long based on his mastery of judo.

Fred -> James F... , 18 August 2017 at 10:03 AM
James F,

" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."

That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.

TV , 18 August 2017 at 10:18 AM
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans, especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government), Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
blowback , 18 August 2017 at 10:33 AM
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144365/cops-dropped-ball-charlottesville

The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.

doug -> Tyler... , 18 August 2017 at 10:40 AM
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."

Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by "teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."

These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality, exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.

turcopolier , 18 August 2017 at 10:45 AM
Booby

Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1 and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the South knows the cost of war." pl

ISL , 18 August 2017 at 10:53 AM
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).

But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?

When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their filth with facts and arguments and history.

I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back, is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his own mental echo chamber).

If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.

sid_finster , 18 August 2017 at 11:29 AM
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness.

But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.

[Aug 20, 2017] As Russia-Gate Story Stalls, Cue Trump Neo-Nazi Scandal by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk". ..."
"... The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective. ..."
"... It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked. ..."
"... In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility. ..."
"... Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax. ..."
"... The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

August 18, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The political opponents of President Trump have found a new lever for sabotaging his presidency – his alleged embrace of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. He is now being labelled a "sympathizer" of fascists and bringing America's international image into disrepute. Cue the impeachment proceedings.

Notably, the same power-nexus that opposed Trump from the very outset of his presidency is vociferously condemning his alleged racist leanings. Pro-Democrat media like the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN can't give enough coverage to Trump "the racist", while the intelligence community and Pentagon have also weighed in to rebuke the president. Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk".

This is not meant to minimize the ugliness of the various Neo-Nazi fringe groups that have lately rallied across Southern US states. Trump's wrongheaded remarks which appeared to lay equal blame on anti-fascist protesters for deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, were deplorable.

However, the concerted, massive media campaign to nail Trump as some kind of new Fuhrer seems way over the top. The media frenzy smacks of Deep State opponents scouring for a handy new pretext for ousting him from office.

The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective.

Back in January, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, the US intelligence agencies claimed that Russia had interfered in the presidential election with the aim of promoting Trump's victory over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. But seven months on, no evidence has ever been produced to support that sensational claim.

Despite this absence of "killer evidence" to damage Trump as a Russian stooge, the Congress continues to hold investigations into the vapid allegations. And, separately, a "special prosecutor" – former FBI chief Robert Mueller – continues to expand his investigation, forming a grand jury and this week opening enquiries into White House staff.

Thus the whole Russia-gate affair is in danger of becoming a giant farce from the lack of evidence. With so little to show for their herculean efforts to trap Trump as a "Russian patsy", his political opponents, including prominent media organizations, are at risk of being seen as ridiculous hoaxers.

A telltale sign of how bankrupt the Russia-gate story is was the publication of a lengthy article in Wired earlier this month. The California-based online magazine proclaims to be a cutting-edge technology publication. Wired is published by Condé Nast, a global American company, whose other prestige titles include Vogue, Vanity Fair and New Yorker . With a claimed monthly readership of 30 million, and an editorial staff of over 80, Wired is supposed to be a global leader in new technology and communications.

According to its advertising blurb, "Wired is where tomorrow is realized", adding: "It is the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant transformation".

Therefore, as a US technology forum, this publication is supposed to be the elite in insider information and "nerdy journalism". With these high claims in mind, we then turn excitedly to its article published on August 8 with the headline: "A guide to Russia's high tech tool box for subverting US democracy".

On reading it, the entire article is a marathon in hackneyed cliches of Russophobia. It is an appalling demonstration of how threadbare are the claims of Russian hacking into the US election last year. Citing US intelligence sources, the Wired article is a regurgitation of unsubstantiated assertions that Russian state agencies hacked into the Democratic National Committee last July and subsequently used whistleblower site Wikileaks to disseminate damaging information against Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.

"According to US investigators", says Wired, "the hack of the DNC's servers was apparently the work of two separate Russian teams, one from the GRU [military intelligence] and one from the FSB [state security service], neither of which appears to have known the other was also rooting around in the Democratic Party's files. From there, the plundered files were laundered through online leak sites like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks Their impact on the 2016 election was sizable, yielding months of damaging headlines".

Nowhere in the Wired article is any plausible technical detail presented to back up the hacking claims. It relies on US intelligence "assessments" and embellishment with quotes from think tanks and anonymous diplomats whose anti-Russia bias is transparent.

Wired's so-called Russian "tool box for subverting US democracy" covers much more than the alleged hacking into the DNC. It accuses Russia of using news media, diplomats, criminal underworld networks, blackmail and assassinations as an arsenal of hybrid warfare to undermine Western democracy.

Wired declares: "And they are self-reinforcing, because in Russia the intelligence apparatus, business community, organized crime groups, and media distribution networks blend together, blurring and erasing the line between public and private-sector initiatives and creating one amorphous state-controlled enterprise to advance the personal goals of Vladimir Putin and his allies".

This is an astoundingly sweeping depiction of Russia in the most slanderous, pejorative terms. Basically, Wired is claiming that the entire Russian state is a criminal enterprise. The Russophobia expressed in the article is breathtaking – and this is in a magazine that is supposed to be a leader in technology-intelligence.

Wired tells its readers of Russia having a "Grand Strategy" – to undermine Western democracies, and multilateral alliances from NATO to the European Union.

With foreboding, it warns: "[T]he Putin regime's systematic effort to undermine and destabilize democracies has become the subject of urgent focus in the West the biggest challenge to the Western order since the fall of the Berlin Wall".

The salient point here is that despite its grandiose professional claims, Wired provides nothing of substance to support the narrative that Russia hacked into the US election. If a supposed cutting-edge technology magazine can't deliver on technical details, then that really does demonstrate just how bankrupt the whole Russia-gate story is.

Moreover, another nail in the coffin for the Russia-gate narrative was recently provided by a respected group of former US intelligence officers called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Last month, the group wrote to President Trump with their expert analysis that the DNC incident was not a hack conducted via the internet, but rather that the information came from a DNC insider. In other words, the information was a leak, not a hack, in which the data was transferred by person out of the DNC offices on a memory disk. In that case, Russian agents or any other internet agents could not have possibly been involved. The key finding in the VIPS analysis is that the information obtained from the DNC computers was so vast in file size, it could not have been downloaded over the internet in the time period indicated by meta-data.

It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked.

In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility.

Even a supposed top technology publication, Wired, is embarrassingly vacant of any details on how alleged Russian hackers are supposed to have interfered in the US election to get Trump into the White House. As if to compensate for its dearth of detail, the Wired publication pads out its "big story" with hackneyed Russophobia worthy of a corny James Bond knock-off.

Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax.

The Deep State and other political/media opponents of Trump are inevitably scrabbling for alternative means of sabotaging his presidency. They are finding that the Russia-gate ploy to get Trump out of the White House is in danger of collapsing from lack of evidence and from the emergence of a plausible explanation for the DNC breach that damaged Clinton's election campaign. The bottomline is: it wasn't the Russians, so all the hype about Trump being a Russian stooge is a case of fake news, just as Trump has long maintained.

The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". Trump's nationalistic America First views may be suspect, even reprehensible in their wider association. That's not the point. The point is the concerted, orchestrated way that the Deep State will rail-road the new campaign to oust Trump in place of the failing Russia-gate ploy. The contempt for democratic process raises the question of who the more dangerous American fascists are?

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was first published by Strategic Culture Foundation

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 20, 2017] I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations.

Notable quotes:
"... The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Krollchem | Aug 20, 2017 1:12:08 PM | 123

james @121

I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations. In contrast, both Fascism and national socialism directed corporations to meet state end: "Difference Between Fascism and Nazism"
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/

  1. Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party.
  2. For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
  3. While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."

The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html

Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).

[Aug 20, 2017] The Story of Charlottesville Was Written in Blood in the Ukraine

Aug 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
I wrote that:

"The brutal repression and dehumanization witnessed across Europe in the 1930s has not found generalized expression in the U.S. and Europe, at least not yet. Nevertheless, large sectors of the U.S. and European left appear to be unable to recognize that the U.S./NATO/EU axis that is committed to maintaining the hegemony of Western capital is resulting in dangerous collaborations with rightist forces both inside and outside of governments."

The impetus of that article was to critique the inherent danger of the Obama Administration's cynical manipulation of right-wing elements in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. Not only was it dangerous and predictably disastrous for the Ukrainian people, but because U.S. support for a neo-fascist movement in Ukraine took place within a context in which the political right was gaining legitimacy and strength across Europe, the political impact of the right gaining power in Ukraine could not be isolated from the growing power of the right elsewhere. Which meant that the Obama Admiration's selfish, short-term objective to undermine Russia in Ukraine had the effect of empowering the right and shifting the balance of forces toward the right throughout Europe.

But because Obama was incorrectly seen as a liberal, he was able to avoid most criticism of his policies in Ukraine, in Europe and domestically. In fact, liberals and the left both in the U.S. and in Europe generally supported his Ukraine policies.

However, playing footsie with right-wing elements in the Ukraine and underestimating the growing power of the right has resulted in powerful and dangerous right-wing movements on both sides of the Atlantic who have effectively exploited endemic white racism and the contradictions of neoliberal capitalist globalization. The ascendancy of Donald Trump cannot be decontextualized from the racial, class and gender politics of this moment here and abroad.

[Aug 19, 2017] Vassal Aristocracies Increasingly Resist Control by US Aristocracy by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together, into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts about those international events.

The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.

First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented (via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the current news: America's aristocracy controls both the U.S. federal government and press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC. The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world.

The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich.

Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means) as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events.

For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often referred to the U.S. government, "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable." All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise. Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money, to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit their given nation's public.

The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called "Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into. Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief locus of the old order's fractures .

This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the backlash-phase of it.

A turning-point in escalating the weaponization of finance was reached in February 2014 when a Ukrainian coup that the Obama Administration had started planning by no later than 2011, culminated successfully in installing a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia's border, and precipitated the breakaway from Ukraine of two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted overwhelmingly for the man the U.S. regime had just overthrown . This coup in Ukraine was the most direct aggressive act against Russia since the Cold War had 'ended' (it had actually ended on the Russian side, but not on the American side, where it continues ) in 1991. During this coup in Kiev, on February 20th of 2014, hundreds of Crimeans, who had been peacefully demonstrating there with placards against this coup (which coup itself was very violent -- against the police, not by them -- the exact opposite of the way that "the Maidan demonstrations" had been portrayed in the Western press at the time), were attacked by the U.S.-paid thugs and scrambled back into their buses to return home to Crimea but were stopped en-route in central Ukraine and an uncounted number of them were massacred in the Ukrainian town of Korsun by the same group of thugs who had chased them out of Kiev .

This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens.

On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued "Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty" over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right Ukrainian thugs, who were racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's vassal aristocracies then imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a secret their public would not be allowed to know.)

The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President .

It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined on August 1st, "Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage -- the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this hot war against Russia is via the "Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also backed up by major increases in physical weaponry , and by the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments have become lying aggressors.

Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online, by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to on this):

All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another, so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military) aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here from rt dot com):

"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned. So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break their existing corrupt mold) don't publish this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type, such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia. The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is 'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.

The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined "Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian but all editions, was "Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's Xinhua News Agency bannered "Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" , and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.

Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin , because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings, they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the ugly reality about him.

However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue a study, "Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor; and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."

The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted. Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those 80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and, after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60% .

President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to be, he is fascist ; just not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their 'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad -- e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media, which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret, of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Recently from Author

America's Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia Why Readers Shouldn't Trust Staff Reporters Why Sanders Supporters Should Vote for Trump

Fidelios Automata > , August 19, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT

Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been fascist to some degree.

exiled off mainstreet > , August 19, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.

WorkingClass > , August 19, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Good news – The beast is dying. Bad news – We Americans are in its belly.

Wally > , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

"America's aristocracy" = lying Israel First Zionists. Why doesn't Eric Zuesse just say the truth? What is he afraid of?

Must read:

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.

Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump does not hold her hand.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am GMT

Fidelios,

Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing as a normal business practice.

On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever since Wilson).

Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th Century.

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

@Fidelios Automata

Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity, the Roman empire, were celebrated.

One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians, it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their hatred of communism.

Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.

Priss Factor > , August 19, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

Come on

'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)

US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.

It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.

Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.

Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia, deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews, BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran, Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.

They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be different from Jewish obsessions.

Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.

So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat' around.

We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But Hitler had Rohm wiped out.

Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.

One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants. But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists' wanted.

It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.

Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.

I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.

Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi." I'm open to suggestions.

"Goonocrats"?

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will.

They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence

No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him: one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.

Joe Hide > , August 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology, and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy, narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

"ruling mafiosi."

No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most. Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good deal right.

First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.

It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.

Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3% of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.

The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics – is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.

Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem 'immigrant' as Pope.

Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Brabantian Good comments.They apply to a few others around here as well, particularly this.

who mixes some truth with big lies

Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all. This story must be told.

https://altright.com/2017/08/19/charlottesville-occupy-wall-st-and-the-neoliberal-police-state/

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus

"ruling mafiosi."
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."

Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.

Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer Lansky and many many others.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-gangsters-in-america

New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, LA, Miami, and many others all dominated by non-Italian mobsters, not to mention the US government.

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon goes as the military takes over the Trump administration by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | theduran.com

The announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.

Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.

In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is continuing to tighten his control of the White House.

Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is completing his purge of the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.

Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.

I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills.

Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.

The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.

I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it.

However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.

As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration.

In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway.

It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.

The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.

The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.

All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.

The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.

It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.

Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.

The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.

Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.

[Aug 18, 2017] Pentagon took over White house: The firing of Bannon leaves the Generals without an opposing view. They will no longer be contradicted

Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker. For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Are we a step closer to War?

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:19:23 PM | 97

Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...

Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage which might destroy those projects in the future.

Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-scrap-rule-protect-094700052.html

Oh, my. Things ought to be interesting in DC in the near future. Dangerous all over in the long run.

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:20:53 PM | 98
Oops. Real work consequences should have been real world consequences. Preview is a good tool to use....
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:29:00 PM | 99
Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/

Now it appears that Trump's completely surrounded by the former generals he appointed--a different version of Seven Days in May? Or is it the fantastical number of contradictions finally coming home to roost as The Saker seems to think, http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.

It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no fog!

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:37:52 PM | 100 previous page
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s what sort of message given the context Gore opined? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself as a previously closeted Neocon?
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 2:40:58 PM | 101
Another "grown up"?:

Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit

US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2017 2:42:16 PM | 102
Manifest Destiny and Religious Zealotry (extremism) were manifested in recent history by America's Great Leaders. Here's General Boykin:

You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his [about Muslims in Somalia]. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

Many other quotes here:

http://www.azquotes.com/author/39645-William_G_Boykin

Greg M | Aug 18, 2017 2:55:25 PM | 103
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners. First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 18, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 104
Thirdeye & Fastfreddy

Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)

This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.

Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump By Tom Engelhardt

Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of ours.

We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow.

Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond compare?

And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 3:34:25 PM | 105
Greg D

You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 3:37:18 PM | 106
@Madderhatter67 @104--

Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality.

smuks | Aug 18, 2017 6:50:43 PM | 107
Nah...don't quite agree on this one. The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes.

Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.

[Aug 18, 2017] Russia-gate Hoax About To Be Exposed by Justin Raimondo

Aug 18, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?

There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill reports :

"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."

Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges to this view have emerged in recent days, including from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with. "Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,

"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."

What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner: he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?

Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian" views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."

It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia bandwagon. Cato cut their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse. Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying we are already at war with Russia:

"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is up to you what choice you will make."

And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:

"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."

While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic. Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."

The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics – epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be supported.

Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin. This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.

We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning. That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked." We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either. We always ask the question: " Where's the evidence? "

[Aug 18, 2017] The Corporate fascist - with grains of salt - USA. The democracy part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the organised/fake elections, to attempt some kind of readjustement - renewal - reset...

Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar republic is a classic example here.
Notable quotes:
"... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
"... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
"... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
"... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
"... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
"... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ŕ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tay | Aug 18, 2017 6:56:05 AM | 82

The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse, and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.

Grieved | Aug 18, 2017 9:51:21 AM | 83

@82 Tay

That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft.

The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility.

Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.

Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity when direction is lost.

Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.

-- Putin reminds that "patriotism drastically differs from nationalism"

somebody | Aug 18, 2017 11:00:25 AM | 86
83
Upward mobility has fallen sharply
"In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."

Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.

Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?

Noirette | Aug 18, 2017 11:56:04 AM | 90
The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal - re-set - review...

Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.

Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently. One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style, Heart, Love, Looks! Go!

The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ŕ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.

[Aug 16, 2017] Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars Defend Democracy Press by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
5 August 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The original source of this article is Consortiumnews Copyright © Robert Parry , Consortiumnews , 2017

A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

Since the neocons' emergence as big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration , they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks .

But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left's disgust with President Trump

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government of Bashar al-Assad

Read also: JFK at 100

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.

When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.

But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.

Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said ,

"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."

Read also: The future of Sanders' political movement

But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

'Hand-Picked' Analysts

According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Read also: Now, only CIA and the military do not lie in USA! But, alone, can they stop the Coup and the War?

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous."

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents. Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush 's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S. government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Aug 15, 2017] Attack Venezuela Trump Can't be Serious!

Notable quotes:
"... US policy is to create unrest and then use that unrest as a pretext for US intervention. ..."
"... Military officers play an important role in defending the United States. Their job is to fight and win wars. But the White House is becoming the war house and the president seems to see war as a first solution rather than a last resort. His threats of military action against a Venezuela that neither threatens nor could threaten the United States suggests a shocking lack of judgment. ..."
"... But there is another factor in the unrest in Venezuela. For many years the United States government, through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and US government funded NGOs, have been trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government. ..."
"... Thank you Dr. Paul. When it comes to Venezuela I read over and over in the com boxes that "Socialism doesn't work" as if that's all there is to it. Nothing works if Imperial Washington doesn't want it to work. The Anglo/Zio Empire is in steep decline. When it collapses will I be allowed to say Capitalism doesn't work? I didn't think so. ..."
"... Venezuela is not the only country in South America we have tried this approach. In the last few years, we have already succeeded in changing the regimes in Brazil and Argentina. ..."
"... The difference is that in 1980 we still had two parties. Democrats, back then, were anti-war party. Now, thanks to our neocons and Israeli-firsters, we only have a WAR party. Members include both Democrats and Republicans. Any such legislation will not be forthcoming soon. ..."
Aug 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

There is something unsettling about how President Trump has surrounded himself with generals. From his defense secretary to his national security advisor to his White House chief of staff, Trump looks to senior military officers to fill key positions that have been customarily filled by civilians. He's surrounded by generals and threatens war at the drop of a hat.

President Trump began last week by threatening "fire and fury" on North Korea. He continued through the week claiming, falsely, that Iran is violating the terms of the nuclear deal. He finally ended the week by threatening a US military attack on Venezuela.

He told reporters on Friday that, "We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary. We have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away. Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering, and they are dying."

Venezuela's defense minister called Trump's threat "an act of craziness." Even more worrisome, when Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro tried to call President Trump for clarification he was refused. The White House stated that discussions with the Venezuelan president could only take place once democracy was restored in the country. Does that mean President Trump is moving toward declaring Maduro no longer the legitimate president of Venezuela? Is Trump taking a page from Obama's failed regime change policy for Syria and declaring that "Maduro must go"?

The current unrest in Venezuela is related to the economic shortcomings of that country's centrally-planned economy. The 20th century has shown us very clearly that state control over an economy leads to mismanagement, mal-investment, massive shortages, and finally economic collapse. That is why those of us who advocate free market economics constantly warn that US government intervention in our own economy is leading us toward a similar financial crisis.

But there is another factor in the unrest in Venezuela. For many years the United States government, through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and US government funded NGOs, have been trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government. They almost succeeded in 2002, when then-president Hugo Chavez was briefly driven from office. Washington has spent millions trying to manipulate Venezuela's elections and overturn the results. US policy is to create unrest and then use that unrest as a pretext for US intervention.

Military officers play an important role in defending the United States. Their job is to fight and win wars. But the White House is becoming the war house and the president seems to see war as a first solution rather than a last resort. His threats of military action against a Venezuela that neither threatens nor could threaten the United States suggests a shocking lack of judgment.

Congress should take President Trump's threats seriously. In the 1980s, when President Reagan was determined to overthrow the Nicaraguan government using a proxy army, Congress passed a series of amendments, named after their author, Rep. Edward Boland (D-MA), to prohibit the president from using funds it appropriated to do so. Congress should make it clear in a similar manner that absent a Venezuelan attack on the United States, President Trump would be committing a serious crime in ignoring the Constitution were he to follow through with his threats. Maybe they should call it the "We're Not The World's Policeman" act. (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

Attack Venezuela? Why not? We can't leave any corner of the world untouched. As for the generals, we were so busy watching the coup by the media that we missed the coup by the generals well played, sirs.

Bombing yet another country reminded me of an old Monty Python sketch, but now that I see Mr. Neutron's hair, I can see the uncanny resemblance could it be that the Pythons aptly predicted Trump more than forty years ago ?

https://youtu.be/Ph-1rzqZCHY

WorkingClass > , August 15, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT

But there is another factor in the unrest in Venezuela. For many years the United States government, through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and US government funded NGOs, have been trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

Thank you Dr. Paul. When it comes to Venezuela I read over and over in the com boxes that "Socialism doesn't work" as if that's all there is to it. Nothing works if Imperial Washington doesn't want it to work. The Anglo/Zio Empire is in steep decline. When it collapses will I be allowed to say Capitalism doesn't work? I didn't think so.

MEexpert > , August 15, 2017 at 7:23 am GMT

But there is another factor in the unrest in Venezuela. For many years the United States government, through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and US government funded NGOs, have been trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

Venezuela is not the only country in South America we have tried this approach. In the last few years, we have already succeeded in changing the regimes in Brazil and Argentina.

In the 1980s, when President Reagan was determined to overthrow the Nicaraguan government using a proxy army, Congress passed a series of amendments, named after their author, Rep. Edward Boland (D-MA), to prohibit the president from using funds it appropriated to do so.

The difference is that in 1980 we still had two parties. Democrats, back then, were anti-war party. Now, thanks to our neocons and Israeli-firsters, we only have a WAR party. Members include both Democrats and Republicans. Any such legislation will not be forthcoming soon.

[Aug 13, 2017] Linh Dinh

Notable quotes:
"... Andre Vltchek, this man believed that a resurgent Communism would be led by Russia and China. ..."
"... Linh Dinh's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog . ..."
Aug 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

228 Comments Reply Dresden, 2015

In a few hours, I'll fly to Europe, my favorite continent, and why not? Most of my intellectual and artistic heroes are Europeans, Kakfa, Beckmann, Kippenberger, Siebald, Rabelais, Rimbaud, Celine, Orwell, Kundera, Dostoievsky and Milosz, etc. I've spent significant time in Italy, England and Germany, and have fond memories of a least a dozen other European countries, all very distinctive from each other. Still.

White culture has dominated much of the world for several centuries, but it is winding down through self hatred. The white left mostly hate whites, while most of the white right are contemptuous of everybody else. Half of whites, then, hate the other half, and contemporary white culture is a degraded mess. Think Katy Perry being breaded, kneaded, garnished then cooked. Free of war and colonialism, whites are doing a fine job of destroying themselves.

Many are cheering. It's about time! Susan Sontag in 1967, "The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone!its ideologies and inventions!which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."

After white hegemony comes Chinese leadership, many whites themselves are hoping. When I was in Leipzig in 2015, a German friend insisted that the Chinese were lifting up the Third World. It was a constructive partnership, he said, unlike murderously exploitative white colonialism. Often citing Andre Vltchek, this man believed that a resurgent Communism would be led by Russia and China. He didn't care for my observation that the Russians and Chinese had regained their footing, confidence and compass thanks to nationalism. Nationalism is reactionary, he believed. He himself didn't feel German and could care less for the concept. Most tellingly, this man had never been outside Germany. He didn't know how grounded to Germany he was.

No population anywhere needs a global ideology. Not only is global solidarity unachievable, but undesirable.

Bereft of a homeland, many Jews dreamt of a international brotherhood, thus the nightmarish chimera of Communism, which is defended to this day by the most emotionally arrested, historically amnesiac or simply hypocritical. Many who extol the virtues of international Communism will also rabidly defend the ultra nationalist and racist state of Israel.

In the popular mind, the evilness of white culture is epitomized by Nazi Germany, with Germans forever stigmatized as the worst of whites. Contemporary Germany, however, is one that supposedly allowed 500+ German women to be sexually assaulted by Muslims in Cologne during New Year's Eve of 2016. Germany is really that neutered, goes the narrative.

Perhaps emboldened by such, Vietnam recently kidnapped a Vietnamese asylum seeker from the Tiergarten, right in the heart of Berlin, then smuggled him back to Hanoi to stand trial. A former head of the state-owned oil company, Trinh Xuan Thanh is accused of pinching $150 million. Maybe Turkey will follow suit and snatch a few of Edorgan's enemies?

I'll be in Barcelona by morning. Emerging from the train onto the Placa de Catalunya in 2003, I encountered so many Africans and Chinese peddling goods, I thought I was in, well, Naples or Belleville in Paris. My mind has been in Spain for weeks. Reading Spanish newspapers, I learnt that a Senegalese had been beaten to death by four other Africans in Salou, just a 15 minute drive from Taragona, where I'll be staying with Jonathan Revusky .

In Salou in 2015, a Senegalese peddler of pirated DVDs, counterfeit sunglasses and fake handbags jumped to his death from a third floor balcony as police raided his apartment. This led to two days of clashes between 100+ Senegalese and police.

In Florence more than a decade ago, I often ran into Africans selling bogus goods made by Chinese, often in nearby Prato. With a population of 191,104, it has 45,000 Chinese.

Taragona and Bacerlona Provinces are 10% Muslims, the highest in Spain. In Reus, a law was passed in 2014 banning burquas. When it was struck down by the Spanish Supreme Court, this code was revised to ban all full-face coverings, so you best not loiter in the Reus McDonald's while wearing a motorcycle helmet, baclava or facekini.

I read that in Pizarra, population 8,990, a three-year-old girl was hit by a train. What's most remarkable is that as news of her disappearance spread around midnight, 300 locals immediately volunteered to search for her. That's the kind of small town Europe I remember, having spent two years in Certaldo, Italy, population 16,000.

You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.

Linh Dinh's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog . ← On Nationalism George Orwell and Mohammed Atta Were Here → RSS Ideology Tags: Flight from White , Political Correctness Recently from Author

Related Pieces by Author Of Related Interest On the Two Minute Hate At Google, Stone Age Sex Equality, and What Happened to Female Coders John Derbyshire Making Sense of the Google Memo In Defense of James Damore Christopher DeGroot A New Martin Luther? A Russian Conservative on James Damore Anatoly Karlin ← On Nationalism George Orwell and Mohammed Atta Were Here → Hide 228 Comments Leave a Comment 228 Comments to "Peak White Man" Commenters to Ignore ...to Follow Endorsed Only

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.

No, the contemporary "American empire" is a flailing, Jewish golem. Its "corrosive ideologies" and "madnesses" will have to be addressed first. Both Europe and the US will have to solve that problem before moving on to a better future.

Chances are we'll all die before that happens (40/60%). Western Europe is just a lesser golem ATM.

The Scalpel > , Website August 8, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT

I don't know why anyone would want to wear baclava on the face. It would be very sticky. But then again, if one is a sloppy eater ..

Wally > , Website August 8, 2017 at 7:19 am GMT

Leftist / Zionist liars use the 'holocau$t' fraud as a cover to destroy white gentiles and their cultures.

The problem is that belief in the 'holocaust' = belief in the impossible, a la witchcraft where "eyewitnesses", "confessions" and courts of law worldwide stated that witchcraft was a proven fact.

Science, rational thought, & logic simply demolish the 'holocaust' storyline.
And that's why there are Thought Crime Laws that imprison those who engage in free speech about it.

When it comes to any topic that is known to be of special financial & political interests to supremacist Jews, and certainly there is no cash cow & political tool quite like the 'holocau$t' scam, you can bet the fix will be in. To them truth is irrelevant.

The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:

http://codoh.com

No name calling, level playing field debate here:

http://forum.codoh.com

'holocau$t' logic:

"One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
- endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT

You might not recognize it if you were to live that long, but there will be a United States for another millennium.

utu > , August 8, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT

is one that supposedly allowed 500+ German women to be sexually assaulted by Muslims in Cologne during New Year's Eve of 2016.

Not even supposedly. Change it before Revusky finds out. Cologne never happened. Revusky's razor, proves it beyond any doubt. It is the ultimate Wunderwaffe against any accusations tarnishing reputation of Muslims.

Randal > , August 8, 2017 at 9:40 am GMT

Accurate, inspiring stuff.

You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.

You're an incurable optimist. Probably not a bad thing to be, I suppose.

I fear that the triumphant internationalist left, with its firm grip on the commanding political, social, academic and corporate heights of US sphere societies, is managing to get its totalitarian institutions in place to suppress the inevitable growing dissent – "hate speech" laws, institutional and corporate speech- and thought-crime policies, sackings and blacklists, etc.

I believe we will rue the loss of our religion, Christianity, its tenets first ridiculed and undermined and then its institutions infiltrated and corrupted, by the same internationalist, materialist left, in particular.

Realist > , August 8, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT

When white people go the world is screwed.

Stephen Paul Foster > , Website August 8, 2017 at 10:42 am GMT

To see where western European civilization is headed, take a look at Zimbabwe. That is the destination the Left has in mind for us. Obama was the U. S.'s. Robert Mugabe the First. There are more to come.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-exterminationist-left-happy-trails.html

Glasgow Ned > , August 8, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT

This twinkie really hates himself.

Marshall Lentini > , August 8, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

"There is hope."

Doesn't sound like it. That whole last paragraph was non sequiturs. You can't write a couple hundred words detailing why the white man is finished in Europe – and he is – then tell an anecdote and reverse course for the close. That will to band together to find a missing child in Certaldo is the same impulse to band together and serve pasta to skinnies just off the boat in Ragusa. Europeans have succumbed the voluptuous rapture of martyrdom: the end.

Marshall Lentini > , August 8, 2017 at 11:33 am GMT

@Realist Even if this were true in the utterly simplistic sense in which you mean it – i.e. that white civilization is some sort of "glue" holding literally everything together, rather than having been the catalyst for the very forces now consuming it – it might be enormously helpful for this world for which you so blithely profess to care, if whites along with their humanitarian and watchdog organizations actually disappear, leaving the rest of mankind to revert a little to that essential barbarity – of which the altright are so fond of reminding us! – that might at last allow Malthus to take his course

SimplePseudonymicHandle > , August 8, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

Fantastically poignant:

White culture has dominated much of the world for several centuries, but it is winding down through self hatred. The white left mostly hate whites, while most of the white right are contemptuous of everybody else. Half of whites, then, hate the other half, and contemporary white culture is a degraded mess.

Utterly cryptic:

You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.

anony-mouse > , August 8, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

' In a few hours, I'll fly to Europe, my favorite continent '

' Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope '

But you choose to live in one and not the other.

Do as I

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

@utu That first "r" in "razor" is also to be capitalized, isn't it?

fnn > , August 8, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

The neo-Bolsheviks are gearing up for a new Holodomor:

http://forward.com/scribe/379276/neo-nazis-are-rallying-in-charlottesville-will-you-help-stop-them/

Che Guava > , August 8, 2017 at 1:54 pm GMT

Evening Linh.

Probably good afternoon where you are. I am interested by your mention of Vltchek. Used to think he was a more optimistic version of Pepe Escobar (whose writing I still read, although I think he is wildly over-optimist re. BRICS at times, at least the parts that aren't R and C).

I think his heart is in the right place.

With Vltchek, came to doubt any sincerity, a long rant he posted about how bad it was to stay at the Imperial Hotel, i think it was on Counterpunch, it disgusted me. I never stay there, because of having a flat here. Have met staff and managers from there when eating and drinking in the area. They seem to be pleasant people.

Never stay in similar places on domestic travels (although there is only one Imperial Hotel), because being not so privileged and entitled as Mr. Vltchek, much closer to and from the proletarii , I can't afford it.

His extended whine about staying there finally convinced me that he is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

helena > , August 8, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

@Randal I agree that a world government is looking scarily possible but having already rued the loss of my religion and returned to church I am faced with the following choices:
1. convert to Catholicism or orthodoxy
2. join a bunch of exhaustingly positive young people who like to sing nursery songs in big crowds
3. join a very nice but small group of octogenarians seemingly oblivious to 21st century society but with fab choral music
4. join an equally isolated group of younger people with dreary songs and food on their clothing

Protestantism needs a revolution!

Che Guava > , August 8, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

Apologies to mods, thought that I only made similar coments in an e-mail message to a different writer.

Suppose I accidentally hit 'Publish Comment' twice tonight. Sry.

Bragadocious > , August 8, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

So Europe's self-immolation is all America's fault? Funny, I thought Europe had a long and glorious history of destroying itself. And other countries as well. Thankfully historian Dinh is here to set us all straight.

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT

Yeah, Europe's future is bleak but they won't need our help:

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/enterpriseMcGregor/conor-mcgregor-shaped-dublin-roots-prepares-fight-floyd-mayweather

Santoculto > , August 8, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

As If jewyes don't exist

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Glasgow Ned No, he doesn't. I'm Asian too. You can admire other cultures and wish them to be without hating yourself.

I like marsupials and don't want them to be destroyed by an incoming wave of rabbits, for example. Does that make you self-hating? Quite a few environmentalists and animal conservationists wish to keep certain animals alive in their habitat, does this make them anti-human?

Oldeguy > , August 8, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

Another superb "keeper" column.
What Mr. Dinh "gets" , unlike so many others here, is that the various outrages and inanities of the assorted Them ( Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, Trans-sexuals , etc. ) , are not The Problem- they are the symptom of an underlying spiritual collapse in the Western world particularly among its elites who somehow seem to have lost all faith and regard for their own identity and heritage.
The Daily Mail newspaper last week contained a video clip of Malia Obama ( the former President's daughter ) literally rolling convulsively on the floor and banging her head on it at a rock concert prior to beginning her freshman year at Harvard. Where is the Problem- with young Ms. Obama or the admissions committee at Harvard ?

ThreeCranes > , August 8, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT

"In a few hours, I'll fly to Europe "

Well, there's the problem, right there.

If anybody's interested, here's a really fine article about how shipping costs have shaped trade over the last 50 years.

http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/faculty/hummelsd/research/hummels%20jep%20rewrite%20final%20with%20tables.pdf

jimbojones > , August 8, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT

Fun facts about "white culture":
- It invented the entire modern world – cars, airplanes, computers, electricity, antibiotics, telecommunications, industry, advanced agriculture, everything. Curiously, people who complain about "cultural appropriation" never shy from using all of the many fruits of "white culture".
- It invented and perfected science. (The Chinese had some inventions. The Europeans had science. That's why the Europeans invented the modern world and the Chinese didn't.)
- It was the only major culture to destroy slavery. (Check for yourself.)
- For what they are worth, democracy and human rights are "white culture" things.
- And much more.

So yeah, haters of "white culture" should stop and think for a moment.
That "white culture" has committed its share of crimes and atrocities is a separate issue.

Mr. Dinh is quite right that many hate "white culture", which they don't understand, with a passion. And many think that China will be some sort of an angelic new harbinger of peace, prosperity and love. I much admire what the Chinese have achieved to better themselves in recent decades; but surely to expect them to be any sorts of angels is optimistic at the least.

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Do not worry, Sweden shall be the next humanitarian superpower to bring us a world of free of patriarchy, homophobia and racism!

jimbojones > , August 8, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

@Che Guava Vltchek's writings read like Dostoyevsky's "Notes From the Underground".

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT

@Randal I agree. I do think that the major issue is a great spiritual crisis that has led to the extremes that Dinh is speaking of, the increasing polarization of whites into goodthink genderless SJWs or unironic Nazis.

The era of men without chests is upon us.

Its sad.

neutral > , August 8, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

@Bragadocious

So Europe's self-immolation is all America's fault?

Look at the evidence, Western civilization existed for centuries, it had multiple wars but those wars did not destroy it. Then as soon as Western Europe became a vassal of the USA there was an incredibly rapid decline, so much so that one can now basically call Western civilization dead.

neutral > , August 8, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh

or unironic Nazis

They were fighting to fight the white race, one cannot say the same about their enemies such as Churchill or FDR. Since the establishment is hell bent on eliminating whites and fascism is their number one enemy, I regard fascism as the correct ideology to accept.

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh Brilliant analogy there, Danny; but I really haven't met a lot of men who were envious of something that carried it's children in a pouch

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

@Oldeguy

Where is the Problem- with young Ms. Obama or the admissions committee at Harvard ?

The problem is probably with her age, which is 19.

I mean, Oldguy, were you this sage, brilliant, established, infallible, Socratic, world-traveler, that you are now, at 19?

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

Well, the theory goes is that leftism had its initial plague in France where it did indeed destroy its patient with fanatical vigor.

The disease moved to the Anglo culture, which was innately more robust and was thus able to carry it in a less destructive way, allowing it to eventually evolve in America until it reached an appropriate virulent stage where it has spread across the world.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

It is shameful that Russia and China, AGAIN, cooperated 100% with an illiterate, old, mass murderer zionist stooge to pass the sanction AGAINST NORTH KOREA. Down with Chinese, Putin and illiterate zionist stooge who have committed CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

China and Russia Always have cooperated fully with the mass murderers at the Black House to receive a bone as concessions. These two colonies two days ago pleased the mass murderers in Washington by going after another victim, North Korea, but these criminals NEVER called on their ambassadors when the ziofacists were burning the toddlers in occupied Palestine with phosphorate BOMBS, but Venezuela did, that's why this beautiful country is under attack by Clinton – Obama – Trump regime to topple the government. Shame on you all.

These two petty countries always have cooperated with the mass American murderers in Muslim countries for the benefit of the ziofacists because all three are in the pocket of the zionoist bankers.
Putin, Trump and China have enriched themselves by selling others.

When China wants to stand for humanity? When China wants to stand up against EVIL? China NEVER does because still has mentality of a colonized people.
Chinese economy is the largest in the world NOW. Russia has half the nuclear bombs in the world. But both China and Russia still play it very safeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
to receive a BONE as concession by voting along the mass murderes against nations that are under attack. Shame on you all.

Russia and China SOLD Libya that's why these two countries have equal share in the destruction of Libya and massacre of Libyan people by not voting against the Obama regime.

Down with China, Russia and US,and their stooges.

Every one must boycott goods MADE IN CHINA. Don't buy their trash where these servants are giving advantages to trump regime, by voting for the sanction against North Korea to starve them to death. China has hundreds of nuclear weapons – like the criminal Russia and US – but goes against a North Korea that is under attack by the criminal Trump regime on daily basis. We spit at you all.

Assad must ask criminal putin to get out of Syria, because Russia is selling Syria, like Libya, and is cooperating with trump regime and the kurdish terrorists trained by the CIA/Mossad to steal part of Syrian territory and partition Syria according to Oded Yinon, a criminal plan by the ziofascists in the region.

Down with the enemy of humanity – China – US – Russia.

Bragadocious > , August 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

@neutral Ridiculous comment. Europe is hardly a "vassal" to the U.S. Most Europeans mock the U.S. as a has-been country, floating the idea that China's the real world power. If the U.S. is a "flailing zombie" in the unforgettable words of Linh Dinh, how can we be telling Merkel what to do? And why wouldn't Hungary and Poland (also in Europe) be experiencing the same nonsense? No, Western Europe's problems are entirely self-created, the result of decades of Frankfurt School ideology. (Note: Frankfurt is not in America.)

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

@anonymous I can think of no better strategy for success than to simultaneously rage against Russia, China AND the US.

RadicalCenter > , August 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

@helena I'm a lifelong "Roman" Catholic and past sick of the infiltrated traitorous institution.

Let's both convert to Eastern Orthodox.

Santoculto > , August 8, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

@jimbojones Other funny thing

Those who invent or try to advance this things (and often not so advanced) were very few among "white people invent this".

And invent "modern world" also mean

- huge exploitation of working (and middle) classes .
- destruction of environment
- increasing the amount of human trash
- colonialism
- two extremely dumb world wars
And still today "religions" and "ideologies" governing in diverse wrong ways the mind of millions/billion people.

Jovetta > , August 8, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT

It will be over for Whites before the end of this century. Everything bad for Whites will escalate & grow. Pro immigration propaganda, anti-White propaganda, anti-White policies, hatred of Whites in culture & education, immigration, legal and illegal, low fertility (for Whites), race mixing etc.. The left will gain more & more power until democracy & voting is futile. They'll become increasingly more radical & authoritarian. Once White nations are overrun with low IQ coffee colored people the Jews will get their world government. The minority of Whites left will be killed & imprisoned. Thats the goal, put Whites worldwide in the same position as current White South Africans then finish us off. This is where its headed, there is no hope. There will be reactionaries, especially as Whites increasingly suffer as minorities in their own lands, many will 'wake up', but it will be too late, they will not be able to take on the world gov, they will not have weapons to defend themselves & they'll be vastly out numbered. The Jews are ready for the reactionaries, they will laugh..

"We are not ramping down. We're just getting started. Nothing stops this train, nothing."
―Walter White

The Alt-Right reactionaries today are mostly degenerates, some Jew infiltrators deflecting White indignation away from Jews. Their only avenue is the internet and that will not last much longer. The ADL is pushing for internet speech regulation. UN International Hate Speech Laws & they'll eventually get it.
As far as Trump is concerned, he's basically the White man's last hurrah. Right now he serves to motivate and inflame the left. After Trump we'll get someone 10X worst than Obama.
Honestly, only divine intervention can save the White race now.

Santoculto > , August 8, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh A narrative without Jewish issue is a controlled opposition–narrative.

Already we have three types of white guilty

Whites ARE evil (on the left)
Whites ARE too good (on the right)
Whites ARE too collectively stupid/self divisionists (on the non antisemitic center)

Yes, those whites (((and Jews))) who did (((and do))) very bad things at macro-level of impact (creativity weaponize impact), are obviously evil.

Those whites who are truly pathologically altruistic are obviously too good to their reason.

Those whites who don't understand that great part of divide and conquer is their own subconscious job, and they are majority.

(((but)))

helena > , August 8, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT

@RadicalCenter It is rather lovely, gold and incense, and a healthy link with feasting. But I'm not keen on kissing objects previously kissed by other people and, I'm a big fan of the filioque. I'm looking for something choral with shades of Salvation Army and a bit of Taize!

helena > , August 8, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT

@Jovetta That's pretty much how I see it. Somewhere years ago I read that the last blond hair blue eyes will be around the Baltic in 200yrs. I don't envy the Europeans who live through the last stages. But I do think that European genes will be a huge part of society in the future. And Red will never disappear!

The Grate Deign > , August 8, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT

I've had the experience of visiting other lands where non-whites are in charge of a non-white culture. While whitebread America definitely has its share of problems due to sin, crime, folly, and misrule, it's still •definitely• superior to any of the alternatives I've witnessed.

China's corruption is worse than our own. Mexico is in an undeclared civil war with drug lords who strive to outdo ISIS in beheadings. How could you exaggerate what a giant pile of excrement Africa is? Arab rule is so bad that their refugees are overrunning Europe, and not a few Arabs actually prefer to live in Israel! The Hindu-based government in India presides over its empire of poverty and filth and enforces a caste system so cruel it makes America's slave past look positively virtuous.

Truth is, you cannot find a country where non-whites rule over a non-white culture where life is better there than here. What refugees from American oppression flee to any land where non-whites rule over a non-white culture?

Now I just hope Thought Police don't hunt me down for saying this. But as Winston said, "they'll shoot me i don't care they'll shoot me in the back of the neck i don't care".

The Grate Deign

in the middle > , August 8, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Just like the British Empire fell, so will The United Snakes of America. Yes, it will be just another country, without warmongers, and neocons' power to destabilize the planet.

Santoculto > , August 8, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT

Cryptonyte: the "ubermeschen blind spot".

Wally > , August 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT

@Realist There will be nobody to pay other peoples bills.

Santoculto > , August 8, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT

@Jovetta And conservs paralyzed, angry, disorganized, predictable, blinded by false gods & false rationals

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT

It won't collapse. What should scare you is that the progressives and the technocrats will actually succeed and the technocratic diverse global corporate dystopia will become a reality

hyperbola > , August 8, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

Perhaps the Spanish need to ban immigrants like Dinh and Revusky bearing divisive poisons? They are already subjected to a large dollop of PC propaganda by the CIA

Europe's "Bought Journalists"

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/02/europes-bought-journalists/

Not that long ago in Europe, one had to go to a church, a temple or a mosque to imbibe industrial quantities of religious doctrine.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, however, it has become possible to access it in a great and self-satisfied profusion on the editorial pages of the continent's "serious" and nominally progressive dailies, papers like The Guardian, El País, La Repubblica, Le Monde, and Suddeutsche Zeitung.

The particular brand of theology being pushed?

Neo-Liberal Imperialism, something the faith's leading clerics!people like Timothy Garton-Ash, Niall Ferguson. Moisés Naim, Mario Vargas Llosa, Hermann Tertsch, Antonio Cańo, Joseph Joffe, and that erstwhile philosopher-clown, Bernard Henry-Levi!prefer to describe in terms of "promoting trans-Atlantic partnerships" and creating and maintaining "Open Societies"

fnn > , August 8, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT

The Germans hate themselves so much that (after they became part of the Judeo-American Empire) they embarked on a breeding program to turn the de facto national mascot (the German Shepherd Dog)
into a grotesquely deformed and crippled wreck. People mostly hate and/or distrust or simply exploit each other (as the historical record shows), but it takes a special kind of masochism and self-hatred to maim your true best friend.

GSD exhibition in Germany in 1936:

Degeneration and planned torture of the GSD since 1945:

anarchyst > , August 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT

@RadicalCenter Try the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). You may be pleasantly surprised. SSPX subscribes to pre-Vatican II "ecumenical council" teachings. There are SSPX churches all over the country

utu > , August 8, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT

@anonymous I am sure they will remember to capitalize it when enshrining the Revusky's Razor in the Hall of Fame of Universal Laws.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT

@Santoculto Santoculto says:

QUOTE And invent "modern world" also mean

- huge exploitation of working (and middle) classes . [etc.] UNQUOTE

The question is do you throw the baby out with the bath water?

(Vide0 records how practical Chinese view post-colonial Africans, video by way of Unz Review, one of the "Open Thread" series )

hyperbola > , August 8, 2017 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Bragadocious Perhaps both sides of the Atlantic are suffering under the same abuse?

A Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman Speaks

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

The Weaponisation of the Refugee
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism's War on Europe (Part 2 of an 11 Part Series)

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/the-weaponisation-of-the-refugee/

Artificial mass migration as imperial policy has a long history. To illustrate this, we will cite a few historical examples ..

Rothschild's "Slaughter Ships"
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism's War on Europe (Part 4 of an 11 Part Series)

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/rothschilds-slaughter-ships/

Austrian intelligence officials have reportedly revealed that US government agencies are paying for the transport of migrants to Europe. .

hyperbola > , August 8, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT

@Jovetta Confront them obliquely instead of head-on?

Christians can forget "Shallow Diplomacy" in the Religious War on Churches in the Holy Land

http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/08/christians-can-forget-shallow-diplomacy-in-the-religious-war-on-churches-in-the-holy-land/

A month ago, after reading a desperate cry for help from the National Coalition of Christian Organisations in Palestine (NCCOP) addressed to the World Council of Churches, I emailed eight churches in my locality asking whether that heart-rending appeal had trickled down to them at parish level ..

fnn > , August 8, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT

@Bragadocious FRankfurt School was expelled from Germany in 1933 and went to US . Frankfurt School ideology was imposed via on Germany by US occupation forces. Western Europe as a whole has been part of the American Empire since 1945.

On the Frankfurt School:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007815.html

Paul Gottfried writes:
You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the postwar reconstruction of German "civic culture' and the work was deeply admired by SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly. Adorno was only half-Jewish and raised as a Catholic but nonetheless paraded his Jewish genes in explaining how he had arrived at his critique of bourgeois, Christian society. It is furthermore is silly to pretend that Jews have not played a DISPROPORTIONATE role in greasing the skids for our moral and social disintegration. To recognize this is to recognize reality. What is more dubious is that Jews have caused this ruin, without the enthusiastic support or at least cowardly acquiescence of the white Christian majority. Although it is correct to note the significant Jewish contribution to the present decadence, it is naive to think that Jews are the only culprits in what you and I deplore.

Christopher Lash's True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the mainstream liberal support for The Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s. Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno's ideas.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9955.html

During the Second World War, three prominent members of the Frankfurt School–Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer–worked as intelligence analysts for the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime forerunner of the CIA This book brings together their most important intelligence reports on Nazi Germany, most of them published here for the first time.

These reports provide a fresh perspective on Hitler's regime and the Second World War, and a fascinating window on Frankfurt School critical theory. They develop a detailed analysis of Nazism as a social and economic system and the role of anti-Semitism in Nazism, as well as a coherent plan for the reconstruction of postwar Germany as a democratic political system with a socialist economy. These reports played a significant role in the development of postwar Allied policy, including denazification and the preparation of the Nuremberg Trials.

fnn > , August 8, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

Nationalism is reactionary, he believed. He himself didn't feel German and could care less for the concept. Most tellingly, this man had never been outside Germany. He didn't know how grounded to Germany he was.

How did you find such a defective/oddball? Today's Germany is a small place, just a short train or bus ride will get you to a different country. It's not like it's the 18th Century and this guy is Immanuel
Kant.

Realist > , August 8, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

@Wally That is correct. Or to discover/invent thing that keep them alive or make life better.

German_reader > , August 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT

@Randal

I believe we will rue the loss of our religion, Christianity, its tenets first ridiculed and undermined and then its institutions infiltrated and corrupted, by the same internationalist, materialist left, in particular.

I don't know about that can you seriously believe in Christianity's core doctrines (e.g. Original sin, Christ died for our sins/to reconcile us to God/to free us from the dominion of the devil, the Trinity etc.) and regard them as relevant to the present, or compatible with the vast increase in scientific knowledge since the 17th century? I certainly can't, and it seems doubtful to me even most Christians today could make a coherent, let alone persuasive case for them.
And even if one were to accept that the Christian churches have been subverted by materialist left-wingers, I'd say Christianity by its very nature is susceptible to such a takeover. It's a universalist religion with global aspirations, and there are many elements in the Gospels that, if taken literally, would be deeply corrosive to order and morality (e.g. Luke 14,26 where Jesus says "If you're not willing to hate your parents, brothers, sisters etc., you can't be my disciple" not exactly compatible with "family values"; also notable that the primitive church as described in Acts basically practiced communism). There's little imo that's inherently conservative or compatible with patriotism/nationalism in Christianity, and one way of understanding the present situation is that the compromises with and accomodation to the world that it entered during the Middle ages seem to be in the process of unraveling. In a way Christianity, with its future in the Global South, might be returning to its roots and nationalists in Europe are the pagans in the Christian narrative now, a satanic obstacle to the realization of Christianity's full meaning.

Realist > , August 8, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

@Marshall Lentini As I said when Western Civilization goes humanity is screwed.
'Civilizations' that 'developed' at or south of the equator are pretty much dumb ass.

Che Guava > , August 8, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

@jimbojones Jimbo,

You do a grave disservice to Fyodor D. there, though I understand where the sentiment is arising.

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT

@Anonymous "No, the contemporary "American empire" is a flailing, Jewish golem."

That would mere speculation on your part.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT

@jimbojones No, the idea that modern science and technology is a uniquely western creation is highly contested, and will become more contested in future as rival societies increase in wealth and power. You're naive if you think otherwise.

neutral > , August 8, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

@Bragadocious If you have permanent foreign soldiers in your country then you are a vassal, no amount of rosy sounding terms (strategic partnership, allies, international community, blah blah blah) can change that. The Frankfurt ideology could only have spread so rapidly if there was the means to do it, that was clearly Hollywood and the other mass entertainment/media outlets that were deployed in Western Europe.

As for the Hungary and Poland you mentioned, it proves my point, whatever one can say about the USSR, it was not anywhere near as destructive as the Western European states were under US control. The USA was the single most destructive thing that has ever happened to Western civilization.

yeah > , August 8, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

@anonymous The world is as it is, I am afraid, and so is politics. Because we live in this imperfect world and need some politics or the other, the problems only get confounded. You are right, the behaviour of Russia and China is shameful by the yardsticks of logic and ethics. But then, you have to remember that Russia and China are (or at least view themselves as) "Have countries" while the middle eastern basket cases and North Korea are "Have-not" countries. There is plenty of in-fighting among the haves but, when dealing with the have-nots, they present a similar face. All the "Haves" are convinced that it is alright for them to possess enough nuclear weapons to blow up the planet 10 times over but how dare a pesky pipsqueak like North Korea aspire to have even a few? In the realm of international politics some animals are more equal than others. At feeding time, Russia and China, too, behave like 'more equal animals' just to keep up with the most equal of them all. As long as the nuclear club remains a privilege of the few, expect the members to close ranks to keep out new entrants. Entirely expected. Expect to see this scenario to play out again over Iran.

Jake > , August 8, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT

"You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope."

Every part of this paragraph is true.

Why must the American Empire die, or at least be greatly diminished, for European cultures to survive?

Start with the obvious: we are the Anglo-Zionist Empire. We are Part 2 of the British Empire, the 1st Anglo-Saxon Empire. And the foundational culture is Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which right as it crystalized as a culture made its alliance with Jews against all 'other' whites.

WASP culture is, and always has been, about Anglo-Saxon Elites in bed with Jews in order to make war of various types on virtually all whites who are not WASP.

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT

@jimbojones "Fun facts about "white culture":
- It invented the entire modern world – cars, airplanes, computers, electricity, antibiotics, telecommunications, industry, advanced agriculture, everything. Curiously, people who complain about "cultural appropriation" never shy from using all of the many fruits of "white culture"."

You do realize that a number of prominent Alt Right thinkers, ranging from Mark Citadel to Brett Stevens, are opposed to modernity.

Furthermore, it wasn't "white people" who invented the modern world, but Americans, the English, the Germans, etc., with contributions by the Chinese and Japanese.

Moreover, there were important discoveries made by the Nile River Valley, Mesopotamian, and Yellow River civilizations that human beings, namely Europeans, undoubtedly expanded upon.

"It invented and perfected science. (The Chinese had some inventions. The Europeans had science. That's why the Europeans invented the modern world and the Chinese didn't.)"

Again, not without key contributions from several societies.

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

"It was the only major culture to destroy slavery. (Check for yourself.)"

Actually, it was liberal Americans and Europeans who destroyed slavery, with these two groups expanding this scourge like the world had never seen.

Begrudgingly.

"For what they are worth, democracy and human rights are "white culture" things."

No, they are human being constructs.

"Mr. Dinh is quite right that many hate "white culture", which they don't understand, with a passion. And many think that China will be some sort of an angelic new harbinger of peace, prosperity and love. I much admire what the Chinese have achieved to better themselves in recent decades; but surely to expect them to be any sorts of angels is optimistic at the least."

She is patently wrong. White people as a whole do not "hate" themselves, nor are they "destroying" themselves. Rather, it has been the nature of human beings to love/hate and create/destroy. The "evilness" of white culture is not represented by Nazi Germany, but by individuals and groups of people REGARDLESS of race or ethnicity foolishly insist, using God on their side, that they are superior. Pro-race, of course, is code for anti-humanity.

Finally, when Dinh says "Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope", most Americans will find that sentiment to be anti-human and pro-hate. Who wishes for an entire nation to collapse? Who desires a civil war in which hordes of people, especially babies and children, will be slaughtered? Do you?

Santoculto > , August 8, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie I already watched and this video or this point of view, invariably correct, don't change mine. Conservs luv "rationalize" their own historical faults. "their own".

Marshall Lentini > , August 8, 2017 at 7:13 pm GMT

@Realist Ok, history doesn't exist. No problem then. I love simple theories!

Marshall Lentini > , August 8, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

@Jovetta More or less.

Buckle in for Zuck 2020.

utu > , August 8, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT

@hyperbola the faith's leading clerics!people like Timothy Garton-Ash, Niall Ferguson. Moisés Naim, Mario Vargas Llosa, Hermann Tertsch, Antonio Cańo, Joseph Joffe, [...], Bernard Henry-Levi

Right on.

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT

@Corvinus You say "pro-humanity" like it has any meaning. Would womb machines cloning the maximal number of humans be pro-human enough for you?

When humanity has become reduced to soulless dregs of flesh devoid of any of the innate beauty and essence that arose from, yes, among other things, a connection with blood and soil its not a humanity worth saving.

Let the corruption die and take its soyflesh beings with it.

Anon > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 8:09 pm GMT

@German_reader A rather poor understanding of Christianity. Somehow it reminded me of this, from Chesterton, a 20th century english convert to Catholicism:

After one moment when I bowed my head

And the whole world turned over and came upright,

And I came out where the old road shone white.

I walked the ways and heard what all men said,

Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,

Being not unlovable but strange and light;

Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite

But softly, as men smile about the dead

The sages have a hundred maps to give

That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,

They rattle reason out through many a sieve

That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:

And all these things are less than dust to me

Because my name is Lazarus and I live.

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 8:11 pm GMT

@in the middle You underestimate the Narcissistic Personality Disorder of the American Elite; if the Indispensible Nation is going down, they're taking the world with them.

Jake > , August 8, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

@anarchyst I second this post.

I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass. It is not at a chapel of the SSPX, in part because when I began, there was no nearby weekly SSPX Mass. But now that there is, I may soon be over there every week.

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT

@Stephen Paul Foster South Africa is the more apt analogy, though the ultimate difference is only one of time.

Jus' Sayin'... > , August 8, 2017 at 8:22 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Not bloody likely. Take a look here: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016 . the FY 20156 federal budget: a half trillion dollar deficit; even eliminating the defense budget there'd be a deficit; the biggest items, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are beginning accelerating growth.

And higher tax rates will only make things worse. Corporate taxes are screwing American competitiveness. The middle class has no savings. Taking away ALL the wealth of the wealthiest 5% of private individuals would barely cover the deficit from one year of federal spending.

The current federal debt is 17.4 Trillion dollars (over 100% of annual GDP) and growing at an accelerating rate which is currently 3% per annum. THe federal debt will almost inevitably double in about twenty years.

Total state and local government debt and unfounded obligations are hidden quite well but probably at least equal, if not greater than, the federal debt. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8918e8f9-6a84-4534-9c59-c592469aa29e/the-looming-debt-crisis-a-state-and-local-perspective.pdf

Private debt is also a major problem.

And politicians still insist we can magically increase spending, start new wars all over creation, continue paying low IQ women for having bastards and paying those bastards to go to colleges whose names they can't even spell, and yet hold steady or reduce taxes.

We are living in a dying and delusional nation.

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh The Swedes have a real dark side, so if they snap out of this funk, there might be a bit of ethnic cleansing in their future.

German_reader > , August 8, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT

@Anon I don't care what Chesterton or some other intellectually mediocre 20th century Catholic apologist wrote. If you think my understanding of Christian doctrines is defective, you're free to point out so in detail with reference to the Gospels, the writings of the church fathers, the decrees of councils or other relevant materials. Poems don't qualify.

ChuckOrloski > , August 8, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT

Yesterday, the A.P. reported on Madrid police having arrested the Turk-Swede writer, Hamza Yalcan. This action was taken as a result of a "Turkish order, alleging terrorism."

A.P. noted that President Erdogan is pleased with his ability to reach "critical voices outside Turkey."

Mr. Erdogan did not have such success with our ZUSA police forces when he wanted the Pocono Mountain (N.E. Pennsylvania) cleric apprehended for instigating a coup against his government.

(Sigh) ZUSA and Russia can cooperate in outer space but not at sea.

I am fascinated by events in Spain. I recall how NATO lords became upset when the Spanish government agreed to allow Russian war ships to refuel on their way to the east Mediterranean basin.

At any rate, I'm pleased to know Linh and Mr. Revusky will tour west Europe & chances of my becoming more aware are good.

Seamus Padraig > , August 8, 2017 at 8:49 pm GMT

@Bragadocious

Ridiculous comment. Europe is hardly a "vassal" to the U.S. If the U.S. is a "flailing zombie" in the unforgettable words of Linh Dinh, how can we be telling Merkel what to do?

Well, if we have the power to tell Merkel what to do, that would make her a vassal, wouldn't it?

Seamus Padraig > , August 8, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT

@Jovetta Wow. I bet you're loads of fun at parties.

Seriously, though: although the situation is indeed grave, you're being way too pessimistic -- defeatist, in fact. For openers, all the nations of Europe are still overwhelmingly white, and even with current demographic trends, probably will remain so for several generations more. As far as the US is concerned, we will probably have to ditch one-man-one-vote democracy and embrace the old Rhodesian model. Once the (((neocon empire))) is gone, and there's no longer need for 'democracy promotion' as a cover for their globalist ambitions, we could easily scrap the current multi-culti model and establish white government.

neutral > , August 8, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT

@Marshall Lentini He is right, other than the Inca civilization, there were no real civilizations south of the equator.

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh "You say "pro-humanity" like it has any meaning."

To religious minded folks, like Christians, pro-humanity is oozing with meaning.

Matthew 6:26–Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

"When humanity has become reduced to soulless dregs of flesh devoid of any of the innate beauty and essence that arose from, yes, among other things, a connection with blood and soil its not a humanity worth saving. Let the corruption die and take its soyflesh beings with it."

You assume that today's humanity is wholly corrupt and ugly. No, there are elements of our humanity that embody those vile traits. In essence, you are playing God here by injecting what you think are "soulless dregs of flesh" who deserve to die.

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 9:11 pm GMT

@Jake "Start with the obvious: we are the Anglo-Zionist Empire. We are Part 2 of the British Empire, the 1st Anglo-Saxon Empire. And the foundational culture is Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which right as it crystalized as a culture made its alliance with Jews against all 'other' whites."

No, some Americans are able to trace their ancestry to the English. There were other colonists who came from various parts of Europe. There was no "Anglo-Zionist Empire" or "1st Anglo-Saxon Empire", just the British Empire. Furthermore, the North, Middle, and Southern colonies had distinct cultural traits, so our foundational culture was not exclusively "Anglo-Saxon Puritanism". Furthermore, the English were borne themselves out of a multicultural stew–Picts, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Romans, Jutes, Danes, and Frisians.

You really need to study American and world history.

Oldeguy > , August 8, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT

@Truth No, and I'm not sure that I've improved all that much with the passing of a whole lot more years than I care to think about
The point is, however, that in that long ago America entering Harvard didn't make you a member of the cognitive elite- it signaled the recognition that you already were such based primarily on very top of the curve SAT or ACT score ( being a straight A student from a high school whose student body was composed almost exclusively of illiterates was justifiably suspect ). It was, in other words, an individual merit selection.
Yes, I know about legacy admissions- Charles Murray covers this well in the Bell Curve.
It is entirely possible ( though not bloody likely ) that young Ms. Obama is both a top 2% scorer and a creator of truly creative dance which an over the hill philistine such as I am is too limited in taste to savor.
None of this really relevant to the basic fact that thug and Social Justice infestation at colleges and universities, the balkanization of American society Affirmative Action set asides and quotas has all been done by American elites overwhelmingly white, male, gentile and native born.
It still ain't Them.

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 9:17 pm GMT

@hyperbola Speaking of "heart-rending appeal", on a previous thread you had insisted that "Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies."

I asked kindly for a source. Sadly, you neglected to provide one. Interesting how when you are confronted you conveniently disappear. So, what is your source for that statistic?

Remember, of the Dutch West India Company 3,000,000 florins in original capital, Jews contributed only 36,000, or 1.2 percent. In 1656, seven of 167 major shareholders were Jews; in 1671, ten of 192.
And also consider that the 937 slaving voyages from Rhode Island launched from 1709-1807, Jews were responsible for only 21.

Furthermore, you insisted that the Brazilian economy was run by Jews. You supplied a link, yet there was no indication that those two individuals were indeed Jewish. So do you have another source to submit into evidence?

ThreeCranes > , August 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT

Konrad Lorenz, the great student of animal behavior, made the observation that animals that form intimate pair bonds–friendship with the same and mating with the opposite sex–also rear their young with love and care and passionately defend their territory. So Love and Hate are opposite sides of the same coin.

Other animals like fishes school in anonymous aggregations in which there is no intimacy between any two members. A herd of reindeer, wildebeests, a flock of starlings; there is no personal bond of affection or interaction on the basis of individual personality at all.

It is the second type of aggregation that our Fearless Leaders propose as the basis for human societies. No one will be tied to a specific location or a particular neighbor by bonds of affection. Instead human interactions will be regulated by the impersonal contract of the "proposition nation". You see what they've done here? Turned a description of democracy into a prescription for democracy. The have mistaken an effect for a cause.

The prediction suggests itself. In the future there will be little to no individual expression of genius, since genius is grounded in passion and passion is for the particular.

Seamus Padraig > , August 8, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT

@German_reader Good points all. That matches a lot of my thinking about Christianity, too.

But this troubles me: even if today's Christianity is more part of the problem than the solution, and so we chuck it, what do we replace it with? I personally feel no connection to the religion beyond the cultural, but I think there will always be loads of people who need to believe in something. There are plenty of people with advanced degrees and prestige who never tire of laughing at all those 'dumb Christians' out there in Deplorable-land, but who themselves will read horoscopes, do meditation or fall head-over-heels for SJWism. I don't think Odin-worship is going to cut it here.

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

@Corvinus

You assume that today's humanity is wholly corrupt and ugly. No, there are elements of our humanity that embody those vile traits.

A casual perusal of pop culture reveals this to be near universal. No point discussing it with a liberal, however.

utu > , August 8, 2017 at 10:04 pm GMT

@Jovetta The Alt-Right reactionaries today are mostly degenerates, some Jew infiltrators deflecting White indignation away from Jews.

I would go further. There would be no alt-right w/o the Jewish stamp of approval.

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

@Oldeguy Well isn't that the issue now Old Buddy;
you good folks are constantly complaining about the watered-down standards the dusky folks have brought to your favorite institutions

While simultaneously complaining about the job the white people, who came from those institutions before the standards were "lessened", have done in running this country, and the policies they crafted to allow the duskies in in the first place.

Do you not see an issue here?

Sparkon > , August 8, 2017 at 10:09 pm GMT

@Truth

I mean, Oldguy, were you this sage, brilliant, established, infallible, Socratic, world-traveler, that you are now, at 19?

True enough, but nobody fell on the floor for head-banging in previous generations. At least not in the places where I hung out.

It's a race to the bottom now, with stupid show-offs, and reckless nitwits striving to outdo each other with various silly stunts even risky maneuvers to stream live, and impress the world with their own special brand of idiotic folly.

In 1960, the most shocking thing was the Twist, a dance craze that swept the nation, kicking off a wave of dance crazes, mostly of the stand-alone-and-wiggle variety. Who knew then there would turn out to be so many different ways to wiggle?

Suddenly, the devious purpose of a previous craze became known -- the Hula Hoop got everybody in shape for the Twist, and the succeeding wiggles like the Frug, Watusi, Jerk, Fish -- whew! –and of course, almost everyone was thin then anyway, and a good thing it was to be fit and able –and young! -- to do those kinds of dances.

Bragadocious > , August 8, 2017 at 10:27 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Um, this story was about immigration, not NATO. Obviously, immigration is an internal German matter. Unless you have some evidence that the U.S. forced Merkel to bring in thousands of refugees. Which I doubt you do. Of course, I can see Germans and Europeans in general pointing fingers here. It's what they do best.

German_reader > , August 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

But this troubles me: even if today's Christianity is more part of the problem than the solution, and so we chuck it, what do we replace it with?

I'm troubled by that as well and don't have a good answer. A return to paganism probably isn't possible (and in its cruder forms wouldn't be desirable anyway); some vague form of Deism probably isn't satisfying to most people. And being without religion is pretty depressing in a way it amounts to admitting that there probably is no grand story giving meaning to it all and that all our struggles may be entirely meaningless in the end.
I suppose though the "problem" might correct itself anyway, with Europe at least being overrun by the fertile masses from the Global South, who still seem very secure in their religious beliefs maybe all the doubts that have plagued an increasingly secular West since the 17th century will be just a forgotten historical footnote, when Nigerian pentecostalists and Neo-crusaders battle against the forces of the caliphate in Europe's ruins

Abelard Lindsey > , August 8, 2017 at 10:38 pm GMT

@The Alarmist The phrase "United States" refers to two different entities. There is the country known as the United States, which I know and (usually) love. Then there is the American empire, which I despise. The sooner we ditch the American empire, both us Americans as well as the rest of the world will be the better for it.

Oldeguy > , August 8, 2017 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Truth Well, uh er no, not really.
The dead horse that I mercilessly continue to beat is all about agency, the capacity to act in a given environment.
If those whose hands have a death grip on the levers of power are overwhelmingly white, male, gentile native born U.S. citizens ( which is undeniably the case ) , shouldn't our angst be directed at them as opposed to whatever sub-group way down on the power food chain happens to be blissfully misbehaving due to the nonfeasance of the above societal leaders ?

Seamus Padraig > , August 8, 2017 at 10:45 pm GMT

@Bragadocious Vassals often are allowed to determine their own internal policies; it's control of their foreign policy that makes them true vassals. In other words, your counter-argument here is irrelevant.

Seamus Padraig > , August 8, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

@German_reader Sadly, if we can't figure a reasonable answer to that question, then your dark prophecy here stands a good chance of turning out to be true!

neutral > , August 8, 2017 at 11:01 pm GMT

@Bragadocious The US regime supports mass immigration, since Merkel was doing something that adhered to US norms they would not need to get involved. Now if Merkel said all US troops must leave, the reaction from the US would be predictable. Or how about she decided to boycott Israel, yes I know this is not likely, but if she did, then it would be very clear how the US would respond to their vassal.

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT

@German_reader

and regard them as relevant to the present, or compatible with the vast increase in scientific knowledge since the 17th century?

What vast increase? throw out a few examples.

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh "A casual perusal of pop culture reveals this to be near universal. No point discussing it with a liberal, however."

More assumptions made on your part. First, just because there are elements of pop culture you personally distasteful does not mean that our society is other than humane. Second, I'm not a liberal. I'm a white married American man with children who makes his own decisions regarding race, politics, and society.

Corvinus > , August 8, 2017 at 11:38 pm GMT

@Oldeguy "If those whose hands have a death grip on the levers of power are overwhelmingly white, male, gentile native born U.S. citizens ( which is undeniably the case ) , shouldn't our angst be directed at them as opposed to whatever sub-group way down on the power food chain happens to be blissfully misbehaving due to the nonfeasance of the above societal leaders ?"

No, considering that these overwhelmingly white, male, gentile native born U.S. citizens are merely exercising their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. How do propose denying them these fundamental freedoms?

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT

@Oldeguy

If those whose hands have a death grip on the levers of power are overwhelmingly white, male, gentile native born U.S. citizens ( which is undeniably the case ) , shouldn't our angst be directed at them as opposed to whatever sub-group way down on the power food chain happens to be blissfully misbehaving due to the nonfeasance of the above societal leaders ?

Oh absolutely, and how do you express such angst?

By voting for HIM (Drumpf)?

By reading HIS articles (the writers here are elite university/white guy types)?

By joining HIS fraternal organizations, and civic orders?

You see, this whole left/right paradigm thing is a carefuly crafted mirage, the same folks who created the problem are the ones you are personally counting upon to fix it, so is, in large part, racial and sexual animosity. If you looks sideways, you forget to look upwards.

Basically, there are no heroes, only different degrees of saps and cowards in this fight, and a teenager wirthing on the floor is just a symptom of the disease.

Truth > , August 8, 2017 at 11:46 pm GMT

@Sparkon

True enough, but nobody fell on the floor for head-banging in previous generations. At least not in the places where I hung out.

So what they did; showing up for a military draft in wars intended to make Exxon and The Bush Family rich, was better? Is being a simple-minded automaton, in your estimation, superior to being a "stupid showoff" or a "reckless nitwit"?

The reason we have so many simpletons now, is because we had too many simpletons in generations past. This is, at least, my opinion.

Ecclisiasties 1:9 KJV.

Daniel Chieh > , August 8, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT

@Corvinus With ideas that just happen to coincide with all liberal positions. Hilarious.

German_reader > , August 8, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT

@Truth Well, as an example, obviously what we know now about the evolution of humanity is hard to reconcile with an understanding of the fall of man as an event that actually happened (and this view of the fall as a real event that actually took place, not just a metaphor for our depraved nature etc., was the view of at least the churches in the Latin West – I don't know enough about the Eastern churches to make a judgement about their position – for the vast majority of the last 2000 years, and in some form I'd suppose still is the stance of the Catholic church at least; and indeed it's hard for me to see how there could have been a need for reconciliation to God through Christ's death, if there hadn't been an actual specific offense committed against God by mankind).

Talha > , August 9, 2017 at 12:46 am GMT

@Daniel Chieh Hey DanielChieh,

Yeah, the spiritual loss and polarization is indeed sad.

After Derrida, history will be won by whoever is first past the post-.

! Abdal-Hakim Murad (@Contentions) August 8, 2017

Peace.

Talha > , August 9, 2017 at 12:52 am GMT

@German_reader

when Nigerian pentecostalists and Neo-crusaders battle against the forces of the caliphate in Europe's ruins

That is HBO-level Emmy Award winning stuff right there. Wait until GOT is over then capitalize on those that need another series to latch onto. King in the North! King in the North!

Hatch a screenplay -- somebody!!!

Peace.

attilathehen > , August 9, 2017 at 3:24 am GMT

@anarchyst SSPX is accepts black/Asian priests. They have huge missions in Africa. Any church that accepts black/Asian priests-popes is a problem.

Anon 2 > , August 9, 2017 at 3:28 am GMT

@helena Have you heard of A Course in Miracles? If not,
look it up. It has millions of enthusiastic followers in the U.S.
and Europe. Many claim ACIM is the future of Christianity

Corvinus > , August 9, 2017 at 3:38 am GMT

@Daniel Chieh "With ideas that just happen to coincide with all liberal positions. Hilarious."

Fake News Story. See, the problem with ideologues like yourself (and you are no different than lefties in this regard) is that anyone who says they are a moderate, you automatically label them as liberal OR that anyone who takes your positions to task, you automatically label them–wait for it–a liberal.

I favor limiting immigration.
I am a 2nd Amendment advocate.
I support the death penalty.
Eminent domain in most cases is wrong.

Do you comprehend that these positions are NOT liberal, or are you going to be your typical obtuse self?

Alden > , August 9, 2017 at 3:53 am GMT

@Truth Truth is right. Malia is not a fictitious Dickens heroine.

Alden > , August 9, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT

@attilathehen You're Betty from Occidental Observer aren't you? I recognized the obession with Asian/ black priests.

Jake > , August 9, 2017 at 3:59 am GMT

@Corvinus So which are you: NeoCon, or Liberal, Jew, or perhaps just average middle class WASP?

If you are not playing water muddier, then you need to learn that nations always have a cultural Elite that sets standards. Various other groups either assimilate to the standards and biases of that elite, or else they are persecuted until they poise no threat.

In America, for example, the Civil War meant that the American Elite would be WASP, which was the amalgam of New England Anglo-Saxon with PA Quaker. That is the source of American WASP, as Philadelphia native and scholar Digby Baltzell designated.

Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy, which lead naturally and inevitably to Cromwell leading the Puritan Commonwealth to take Jewish loans and in return allow Jews back into England, with more rights than the vast majority of British Isles natives had. That was the start of Anglo-Zionism, which became the largest Empire in world history.

The US took over as London faltered.

Jake > , August 9, 2017 at 4:02 am GMT

@Abelard Lindsey When we went from writing and saying 'these United States' to writing and saying 'the United States,' we marked a new nation, one that was ready to explode into Empire.

Njguy73 > , August 9, 2017 at 4:37 am GMT

@Daniel Chieh

A casual perusal of pop culture reveals this to be near universal.

Maybe you need to visit the streaming music site of your choice and download a Bach concerto. Or some Benny Goodman, or some John Coltrane. Yeah, uplifting music can come from anyone of any color.

Maybe you need to go to your local library and check out the exploits of Robinson Crusoe, Cyrano, or Harry Potter, so you can regale in tales of heroism instead of self-pity. Maybe Amy Tan will do the trick for you, I'm open-minded.

Maybe you need to rent blu-ray copies of Casablanca , The Seven Samurai , or Cry Freedom , so you can see life-affirmations.

And maybe you can see that not everything is as ugly as you claim it to be.

As for me, the only thing I need to maybe do is leave you to decide which path to take.

Njguy73 out.

helena > , August 9, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT

@Jake " Judaizing heresy"

What does this mean in practical terms? What documentary evidence is there for it?

" inevitably to Cromwell leading the Puritan Commonwealth"

I've read this before but I've never seen it argued in full. Inevitable is a big word to use in relation to cultural shifts.

helena > , August 9, 2017 at 6:42 am GMT

@Anon 2 I had a quick look. Thanks for the info. Not sure I'm looking for inner peace so much as cultural sanity. I don't have a problem with racial mixing but I do have a problem with subordinating the (global-minority) guilt-based European culture to the (global-majority) Afro-Asian shame-based culture.

HogHappenin > , August 9, 2017 at 6:51 am GMT

@anonymous I think you have lost your mind. It happens when there is so much naked evil with people not willing to confront it

But you must understand Putin is now the ONLY one who is actually standing up to this menace for the sake of his own country but as a result has rekindled hope in the other "lesser" nations of the world.

And China has always been militarily timid and only willing to use force at the barest minimum

Nonetheless due to the crazed zombie behavior being displayed by DC (in cahoots with Tel Aviv), it is painfully obvious to these two nations that they will have to confront the hegemon some or the other time.

So they are waiting for it to become weaker not to mention someone sane takes charge (just a glimmer of hope but hope nonetheless)

HogHappenin > , August 9, 2017 at 7:09 am GMT

@Seamus Padraig Ah do you think the 'neo-con' empire will be gone with a whisper?? They will try to take down the whole world with them. See how easily they sell "national security' to murder and kill innocents in far away lands and have young kids die for them. As more and more reactionary terrorism happens and add to it their own false flags, it only helps them with even more control and power

You think it will be a cake walk?

Captain Nemo > , August 9, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT

The article forgets an important "detail": the leading role of a foreign element – a very specific group, in the guilt and self hate anti White propaganda in the intellectual sphere, the media and cinematography.

The elite of that group dominates the Western culture for a long time now, and is actively working against White interests by relentlessly brainwashing and conditioning the simple minds, which are always in the majority.

On the other hand, those who try to resist, are demonized.

Corvinus > , August 9, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT

@Jake "So which are you: NeoCon, or Liberal, Jew, or perhaps just average middle class WASP?"

I'm your typical American mutt.

"If you are not playing water muddier, then you need to learn that nations always have a cultural Elite that sets standards."

The citizens of a nation establish norms, whether it be political, social, or cultural. These people may or may come from elite backgrounds. Current trends found on social media, for example, have been established by "normies".

"Various other groups either assimilate to the standards and biases of that elite, or else they are persecuted until they poise no threat."

You are being overly broad here. Americans generally assimilate to our dominant culture; it depends upon specifically what they are "persecuted" for. Remember, freedom to choose does not mean freedom from consequence.

"In America, for example, the Civil War meant that the American Elite would be WASP, which was the amalgam of New England Anglo-Saxon with PA Quaker. That is the source of American WASP, as Philadelphia native and scholar Digby Baltzell designated."

The outcome of the Civil War actually resulted in a large immigration boom, with people entering our shores who would be other than WASP, with a number of them eventually gaining "elite" status due to their money making ventures.

"Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy "

Evidence to support your assertion?

"which lead naturally and inevitably to Cromwell leading the Puritan Commonwealth to take Jewish loans and in return allow Jews back into England, with more rights than the vast majority of British Isles natives had."

Evidence to support your assertion?

Because it would appear that the Jews who returned to England had conditions placed upon them, and thus did not gain "more rights".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettlement_of_the_Jews_in_England#Oliver_Cromwell

Corvinus > , August 9, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo "The article forgets an important "detail": the leading role of a foreign element – a very specific group, in the guilt and self hate anti White propaganda in the intellectual sphere, the media and cinematography."

You mean Jews, right?

"The elite of that group dominates the Western culture for a long time now, and is actively working against White interests by relentlessly brainwashing and conditioning the simple minds, which are always in the majority."

Who are these "simple minds"? Are you not part of this group? In what specific ways? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps white Americans for the past 60 years have made their own decisions based on their knowledge and personal preferences about politics, race, and culture without being subject to "Jewish propaganda"?

"On the other hand, those who try to resist, are demonized."

So "good whites" are those who resist Jewish temptations, and "bad whites" are those who befriend Jews and serve in their interests, right?

So "good whites" are those who demand that their fellow whites are Christian, refrain from race mixing, and remove Muslim citizens from our nation by force, and "bad whites" are those who seek to practice their own faith, marry and procreate outside of their race, and oppose repatriation, correct?

Marshall Lentini > , August 9, 2017 at 1:37 pm GMT

@Corvinus "Who wishes for an entire nation to collapse? Who desires a civil war in which hordes of people, especially babies and children, will be slaughtered? Do you?"

I do. And I mean that. Better than billions of neurotic apes cooped up in little boxes, ranting, jerking off, and waiting to die. Let's revive the tragic. Let's roll the dice. Let's let the weak finally perish, and may the best chimp win.

On the other hand, I admire your critical stance. So much simplistic, self-serving dogma and infantile wishful thinking on the right. But you won't convince anyone. You must know that. Your comments are good, but your reliance on humanism gives them a note of bathos which ruins the whole.

Marshall Lentini > , August 9, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT

@neutral Indisputable, but also beside the point.

I'm not saying a world without white people will be pleasant. I'm saying maybe the reemergence of barbarism – and grand tragedy – is better than all of this.

It's hard for you alt-right guys to grasp because for the most part you've never been anywhere or done anything but comment online and fetishize white civilization. In the end, you're as reliant on modernity as the bluehairs and trannies.

Both sides would like to pick & choose the parts of modernity they like and totally abolish what they don't. In other words, an infantile worldview.

Nonetheless, south of the equator, they do manage a semblance of muh white civilization. It isn't America in the 50′s but it works. And that's all life as such boils down to. There was never some cosmic guarantee that history is perfectable or that "we" (not me or my people of course, always some other people) would be on top forever, and it doesn't mean the world just stops spinning when we're not. Sorry, but that's rank narcissism.

Rurik > , August 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

I did some editing. (Much of this might be redundant as I didn't read the entire comment section)

contemporary ((white)) culture is a degraded mess.

((Many)) are cheering. It's about time! ((Susan Sontag)) in 1967, "The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone!its ideologies and inventions!which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."

In the popular mind, the evilness of white culture is epitomized by Nazi Germany, with Germans forever ((stigmatized)) as the worst of whites. Contemporary Germany, however, is one that supposedly allowed 500+ German women to be sexually assaulted by Muslims in Cologne during New Year's Eve of 2016. Germany is really that neutered, goes the narrative.

Europe will only be saved if the ((American empire)), with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.

Interesting article

this is a conversation that's worth having, as we all have a ringside seat to the death of the Western world, with all that will mean.

For ((some)), it's an imperative. For others, it's the genocide of their fellow people and all hope for the future of their offspring and the preservation of our culture. For yet others, they're simply content to feast on the carcass.

I have to say I'm also intrigued by Mr. Dihn's observations with JR vis-a-vis the glaring realities as this tragicomedy plays out.

I recently asked one of the commenters here what he considered the definition of 'white nationalist' to be – when he spoke of some of the commenters on Unz being "white nationalists".

Ok, what is that? Are the Germans who're apprehensive about massive Muslim and African immigration into their countries, 'white nationalists'? Are the Swedes? Do they qualify?

What I suspect, is that term is sort of reserved for American white men, for whom much of the world seems to have a seething hatred and resentment for. Blaming them not just for slavery and the treatment of the Amerindians, but also for all the wars and atrocities that the ZUS fecal government is relentlessly guilty of, (and for whom the white, American male is expected to kill and die in)

I suspect.. (and this is necessarily going to include some hyperbolic exaggeration), but I suspect that what is being ((subtly done)), is that all the very real crimes and enormities that are being visited upon the planet's people by the ((ZUS government and Goldman Sachs types of corporate thieving,)), are subtly being turned into the singular crimes of white, American men. Who are congenitally racist, unapologetic for slavery, militant, flag-waving, USA! chanting, Mexican wall-building, woman hating, beer drinking, pickup truck diving, causing all the global warming that will kill us all, Trump voting, gun owning, Bambi shooting, homophobic, darky loathing; caricature that is a constant meme coming out of ((Hollywood and Madison Ave, etc..)) seemingly daily, hourly, and by the minute.

And, there's probably some truth to that. But I'd say very little. Rather I suspect that most white American men are not too different than most Canadian or Australian men, but because the Fiend has made its nest in NYC and DC, we American men have the pleasure of hosting it, and therefor get to enjoy the brunt of its blowback on the world's stage. And get to have our characters relentlessly maligned by ((Hollywood)) and ((ad agencies)) as the cause of all the world's problems.

The wars are not being waged for Israel and Lockheed by Obama/Hillary, no they're being waged by congenitally racist "white nationalist" American men hell bent on bombing the darkies- or so it goes.

So when you ask someone what they mean by 'white nationalist', if they don't answer you, I suspect that it's because the answer would be somewhat emotional-based.

'they're white American men who are bombing everyone because they're racists and building walls on Mexico because they hate all brown people!!!!'

not that 'white nationalists' are just like every other person on the planet, who " are ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters."

Just like everyone else. But unlike everyone else, white (particularly American) men are not entitled to want to see their offspring persevere, because we alone are responsible for all the suffering in the world and all the wars and strife and misery that our ((government)) perpetrates all over the planet.

Just like the hatred of the Germans as congenital Nazis, it serves a purpose to deflect the crimes of ((some)), onto a convenient scapegoat. And therefor whitewash their ((own)) bloody hands.

~ a rant

Truth > , August 9, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT

@Marshall Lentini

Let's revive the tragic. Let's roll the dice. Let's let the weak finally perish, and may the best chimp win.

Inspirational speech from your cubicle at the coding farm, Bro.!

OK, it's 10:17, you're late for your 20 minutes 10:15 break. Go to the breakroom and talk about Tom Brady.

Talha > , August 9, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT

@Truth I just knew a revival of the Planet of the Apes franchise would lead to these things.

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

Peace.

hyperbola > , August 9, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

@Corvinus Lots of research available that contradicts your statements. Here is one start about the Dutch jews.

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade?

http://www.jta.org/2013/12/26/news-opinion/world/dutch-rabbi-confronts-jews-with-ancestors-complicity-in-slavery

. In one area of what used to be Dutch Guyana, 40 Jewish-owned plantations were home to a total population of at least 5,000 slaves, he says. Known as the Jodensavanne, or Jewish Savannah, the area had a Jewish community of several hundred before its destruction in a slave uprising in 1832. Nearly all of them immigrated to Holland, bringing their accumulated wealth with them.

Some of that wealth was on display last year in the cellar of Amsterdam's Portuguese Synagogue, part of an exhibition celebrating the riches of the synagogue's immigrant founders. Van de Kamp says the exhibition sparked his interest in the Dutch Jewish role in slavery, which was robust.

On the Caribbean island of Curacao, Dutch Jews may have accounted for the resale of at least 15,000 slaves landed by Dutch transatlantic traders, according to Seymour Drescher, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh. At one point, Jews controlled about 17 percent of the Caribbean trade in Dutch colonies, Drescher said.

Jews were so influential in those colonies that slave auctions scheduled to take place on Jewish holidays often were postponed, according to Marc Lee Raphael, a professor of Judaic studies at the College of William & Mary ..

Marshall Lentini > , August 9, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT

@Truth Notwithstanding that I've never coded a day in my life, I was let go from an office job literally minutes before writing that. Guess ya gotta revise your ad hom, kiddo.

Sparkon > , August 9, 2017 at 4:34 pm GMT

@Truth Non sequitur.

Keep Thy Bible to Thyself.

BTampa > , August 9, 2017 at 4:37 pm GMT

The continued existence of Europe has nothing to do with whether America's empire collapses and everything to do with Europe's own globalist traitors in political office. Keep letting in Muslims and nothing will save it.

Sam Shama > , August 9, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT

@helena Hello Helena
I agree re: the guilt based European culture which seems to have gotten a foothold in some parts of England as well. I wonder what religion can offer in a rearguard action, when it seems to have been the avant-guard, seeking it out! At least to an extent.

Perhaps I conclude too much, but in my recent visits to the U.K., greater London aside, Surrey, Kent and Essex seemed so nice. Quite English, culturally, I'd say.

Truth > , August 9, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

@Alden LOL, uh..oh.

Truth > , August 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

@Marshall Lentini Mana from God, Old Sport!

I actually used "coding farm" as a synonym for "boring job with no future" so I wasn't completely wrong, but in any event, now you are freed up to persue your Passion, and Gift, RALLYING YOUR PEOPLES TO A BETTER TOMORROW!

Seamus Padraig > , August 9, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT

@Rurik A lot of truth in what you wrote. Feel free to 'rant' like that again some time.

Seamus Padraig > , August 9, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT

@hyperbola Arguably, those who were the most responsible for the slave trade were the Sephardic Jews of Spain and Portugal. They knew where the slave markets of West Africa were, having learned about them from the Moorish rulers of the Iberian peninsula -- that's where the Moors and the Arabs got their slaves from. Ostensibly, these Jews were forced to convert to Christianity after 1492 in order to be allowed to remain in Spain. However, many of them became 'crypto-Jews' who continued to practice their religion in secret, while only marrying other crypto-Jews in order to preserve their bloodlines.

doodahman > , August 9, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

Anyone who calls this an "American" empire is a blind fool. It is an empire of the point one percent, an international collection of sociopaths, or sociopath-esque investors who have been using US blood and treasure to enrich themselves. The Americans who comprise a large share of that collection are no more American than the gd Saudis who are part of it.

To paraphrase a famous tourist item: We enforced a global empire for the rich at the cost of millions of lives, and all we got for it was an increasingly worthless petrodollar, trade deficits, and all the gd debt.

So you know, as an American working person to the global riff raff: Up yours, losers. The retraction of American power projection will make us richer and see you all robbing and murdering each other like you always have.

The Plutonium Kid > , August 9, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

@neutral You might want to stop and think about how the United States became the political and economic center of Western civilization before you claim it's all America's fault. Here's a couple of clues. The United States didn't start the First and Second World Wars and did everything they could to stay out of them, and the problems of the Mideast stem in large part from British and French meddling in the regioin after both the World Wars.

gT > , August 9, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT

After white hegemony comes Chinese leadership, many whites themselves are hoping.

So after peak White Man comes peak Yellow Man? The Jews are going to be none too pleased about this, they consider the peak to be their rightful place on this planet.

attilathehen > , August 9, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT

@Alden I read the OCC. I read Betty's ideas and noticed that no one on this website brings up this point. I've read commentators on unz who are RCC and believe that the RCC is the answer. Betty's comments are excellent and when I post them on unz, the RCCers are the ones who can't refute my comments. Betty is correct in identifying the RCC as the worst problem because of its "universality." Most comments are the same blather without getting to the heart of the issue. I like Betty's comments because she always gets to the point on what is really important: IQ and universalism. I modify them, so I hope she doesn't mind. But I bet she won't mind, because the most important thing is to get these ideas out to more and more people. She is absolutely correct in writing that the RCC is a non-starter because of blacks/Asians.

RCC commentators can't deal with this stuff. So they blame the "Jews." OCC blames the Jews too. But Betty is correct in that Jews are minor issue in the struggle to save the West. It is the RCC and Zioevangizers who are the problem. Did you read about that insane Zioevanger preacher Jeffress who said God had given Trump permission to take out Kim in North Korea? Madness!!! Betty always points to the Zioevangizers as evil degenerates.

Who are you Alden? Are you RCC?

fnn > , August 9, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT

@doodahman I'm glad you're not one of the mopes who goes around thanking vets "for their service."

uslabor > , August 9, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

Of course, you're joking.

fnn > , August 9, 2017 at 10:09 pm GMT

@The Plutonium Kid

The United States didn't start the First and Second World Wars and did everything they could to stay out of them

FDR was the one mainly responsible for the outbreak of general European war in 1939. He bullied Chamberlain into making the March 1939 blank check guarantees to Poland (which the Brits knew they couldn't live up to) and encouraged the Poles to reject negotiations with Germany. It's not like Hitler invented the Danzig and Corridor questions-even the mildest Weimar Soc Dems complained about them. Neither did Hitler create a fantasy of persecution of ethnic Germans by the Poles. Polish persecution of its various ethnic minorities during the interwar period is well established. On Aug 17, 1939 there were 76,000 ethnic German refugees on the Polish-German border and another 18,000 in Danzig.

Sources on FDR's responsibility for the war:
Herbert Hoover:

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

Respected mainstream liberal Jewish Zionist historian:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1G7H48SQQAXD8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1557780218

Everything is fully documented and the sources are impeccable. The truth is readily available, it's just that most people just swallow the govt, mass media and academic industry propaganda.

Corvinus > , August 9, 2017 at 11:39 pm GMT

@hyperbola "Lots of research available that contradicts your statements. Here is one start about the Dutch jews."

Of course Jews were involved in the slave trade. I never made a claim to the contrary.

Let us provide context. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Netherlands allowed Jews a much larger degree of freedom to participate in economic and cultural life, so it is other than surprising that Dutch mercantile participation in the slave trade also had some Jewish members. To complicate matters, early Jewish communities in the New World were generally Portuguese and Spanish marranos who endured religious persecution.

Now recall YOU made a specific contention–"Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies."

The link you just provided does NOT offer that particular statistic. Rather, it discusses one Jewish settlement that contained slaves.

More importantly, the statistic given by a historian in that source is that Dutch Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Carribean trade. It was not noted that it was the slave trade or non-slave trade. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic YOU allege.

It would appear that you submitting Fake News.

Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.

Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews' investment share in the Dutch West India Company "amounted to only 0.5 percent of the company's capital". Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that "Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave trade in the 17th century."

Are you prepared to retract your statement in light of the evidence here? Or do you have a source that definitively proves your claim–"Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies"?

Priss Factor > , Website August 10, 2017 at 12:04 am GMT

Peak White Man has met his doom.

Why? It's the Negro.

White Manhood simply cannot co-exist with Black Manhood.

It wilts and withers at the Negro's feet.

In the end, it's about organicism, not ideology.

After all, Cuba is communist, but white men there are facing same problems vis-a-vis the more muscular Negroes. Different ideology but same organic results.

Life exists because of sex. And whom white women have sex with will decide white future. Jungle Fever is the most destructive force against whites.

I see it all over the place, even in National Parks.

Contrary to the view that the South is a land of segregationist rednecks, the fact is lots of rednecks are actually interracist and have sisters or daughters with mulatto kids. Rednecks are now Redcucks.

Afro and Freud = Afreudianism. It will destroy the white race. Sexual liberation means women seek wildest sex with wildest men. And that means white women will run to Negroes. White men are doomed unless they wake up and demand safe space for their manhood to thrive again apart from the Negro.

A tree cannot grow under shades of bigger trees. It has to planted where there's plenty of sunshine. Negro shadow will destroy white manhood, and that mans white women's wombs will be shut off to white males.

Same fate in EU and US.

Since childhood, I've seen racial dynamics play out. Whites were scared of blacks. Still, things were not so bad back then because whites had their own music/culture and blacks had their own. But rise of hip hop changed all that. White girls began to dance to black music by black thugs. End of history.

This is the future of Living 'Western' Culture.

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

There is living culture and dead culture. Most of European Culture is dead. It is in museums or for tourists. It no longer inspires. It's just legacy.
The living culture of the West is mostly worship of Negro and cuckery.

Talha > , August 10, 2017 at 1:28 am GMT

@Corvinus Bro – you kidding me? You're accusing a guy with the handle "hyperbola" of inflated numbers??!!

Pick thy battles.

Peace.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 10, 2017 at 1:36 am GMT

@Alden She's Arab and Armenoid.

denk > , August 10, 2017 at 3:03 am GMT

@anonymous

'Down with China, Russia and US,and their stooges.

Every one must boycott goods MADE IN CHINA '

So you propose to fight the Great Satan and its stooges by taking down one of its main opponents ?
Brilliant --

Funny thats exactly what the Indians have been clamoring for months now.

hehehehe

attilathehen > , August 10, 2017 at 4:15 am GMT

@Anonymous Anonymous (the 1/2 Jew who likes Derbyshire and his brown Chinese wife) – I am not Arab or Armenoid.

helena > , August 10, 2017 at 6:18 am GMT

@Sam Shama Hi Sammy – my comment about guilt and shame was a reference to Frost's work. I miss him.

The hinterland is still English but the liberals have it in their sights; they are determined to mix it up because as we all know, people who oppose immigration live in areas where there are few migrants.

yyrvjh > , August 10, 2017 at 6:43 am GMT

@Corvinus A pretty devastating takedown of "hyperbola". Prediction: hyperbola will now retire its Unz commenting handle and reappear under a fresh one, recycling the same unsupported claims.

Priss Factor > , August 10, 2017 at 6:55 am GMT

Invaders know Europe lacks the will. White men are cucks who don't protect land and women. And women are whores who invite invasion.

The migrant-colonizer song: Hey Hey We're the Monkees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKs43dHBSWA

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 10, 2017 at 6:58 am GMT

Susan Sontag in 1967, "The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone!
Sontag ?? From the dung beetle bloodline tribe --

Jonathan Revusky > , Website August 10, 2017 at 8:59 am GMT

@Priss Factor

White Manhood simply cannot co-exist with Black Manhood.

Hey Priss, did you know that, in the UK, people (at least if they want to be able to watch the telly) have to pay a tax to support the BBC?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website August 10, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

@utu

Cologne never happened.

I don't think so, no. I looked at where this supposedly happened and it just doesn't look possible. Cologne main railway station, serves 280,000 passengers on an average day. (As compared to Grand Central in NYC, which serves 750,000 a day, so it's over 1/3 that level.) Granted, the 280,000 people aren't all there at the same time, but it's a crowded place.

You are apparently willing to believe that hundreds of women were sexually assaulted there with no visual record of any sort. ZERO. Finally, you remind me of a little boy who clings to his belief in Santa Claus, that Santa is going to come down the chimney and bring gifts.

Except the little boy lives in an apartment building and there is no chimney!

It is the ultimate Wunderwaffe against any accusations tarnishing reputation of Muslims.

Well, anybody with a functioning brain should realize that, what I dubbed Revusky's Razor has nothing to do with defending Muslims specifically . As a practical question, in the current day, a huge amount of the false accusations are being made against Muslims, but in principle, it has nothing to do with defending Muslims, as opposed to anybody else.

In any case, what vicious little punks like you seemingly never understand is a concept that, in Eastern religions, is called "karma". We also have the more long-winded formulation "What goes around comes around." "Reciprocity" is another word. In this case, this amounts to understanding that if you advocate vicious tactics against others, those same tactics can (and probably will) eventually be used against you.

So, if you think it's a wonderful thing for the State to be able to round up Muslims, put them in some black hole like Guantanamo and torture them endlessly, with zero due process, it does not occur you that if the State can do that to some Ay-rab, they can do it to YOU too! Legally speaking, what's the difference?

The same little bitch who, for a few bucks, will claim that she was raped by the dirty Ay-rabs, for an extra few bucks, will claim that you raped her or that I raped her. What's the difference to her? I mean, for example, this false accuser:

https://www.rt.com/news/353911-cologne-woman-rape-allegations/

Or this little Jezebel in training: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/teenage-girl-made-up-migrant-claim-that-caused-uproar-in-germany

An intelligent military man is going to be opposed to torturing people they take prisoner because he realizes that he also could be taken prisoner and then would inevitably be tortured.

Of course, you lack that intelligence, so your notion is that if I am standing up for people who are falsely accused, who, in this case, are Muslims, that it must just mean that I just have some agenda to defend Muslims, because I, for some reasons have some special love of Muslims.

Well, anyway, the combination moral degeneracy, mendacity, and willful stupidity that you engage in is truly nauseating. You (and a few other people around here) really do make me want to puke.

Seamus Padraig > , August 10, 2017 at 12:00 pm GMT

@The Plutonium Kid

The United States didn't start the First and Second World Wars and did everything they could to stay out of them

Not entirely true. FDR was hard at work in the late 30s deliberately trying to provoke the Japs into a war. The US had had designs on the far east going back as least as far as the Spanish American War, when they took over the Philippenes from Spain, and the Boxer Rebellion in China. And modern Washington still does harbor designs on E. Asia -- hence the constant Kabuki theater with N. Korea.

As far as Europe is concerned, you're mostly correct, though both Woody Wilson, and later FDR, did game the situation as best they could to try and establish a beachhead on that continent as well.

And in the ME, Franco-British meddling has not been a significant factor there since the Suez Crisis in the 50s. The vast majority of the ME-meddling since then has come from Washington. This goes back at least as far as the 'Carter Doctrine' of the late 70s, if not to the coup in Tehran in 1953.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website August 10, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

@anonymous

That first "r" in "razor" is also to be capitalized, isn't it?

I suppose that's true, since, uncapitalized, it would refer, properly speaking, to the Gillette shaver in my washroom. However, it is hard to imagine there would be many cases where this would lead to ambiguity in an sentence, so I don't think it's that important.

I first defined Revusky's Razor here.

Revusky's Razor: If an event of sufficiently large scale is alleged to have taken place in a wide open public space full of people, yet there is no corresponding video or photographic evidence, then it must be fake news.

This refers to incidents that have happened in the last few years, when, to all intents and purposes, everybody has a video camera in his or her pocket.

Even though I live not far from where it happened, I hadn't been aware of the incidents with Senegalese migrants that Linh refers to in this article. So I looked for some visuals. Unlike Cologne, I came up with things very quickly. Specifically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQPdv7d8Evs

This is from 2015, some months before the alleged Cologne event. Somehow there's plenty of video of the incident in Salou with the Senegalese but none (and I mean really NONE) of the hundreds of women being sexually assaulted in and around Cologne railway station on New Year's Eve. Why is that? My explanation would be that the Salou incident actually happened while the Cologne one did not.

Not only is this the simplest explanation, it is, as far as I can tell, the ONLY explanation. The above is Revusky's Razor (capital R) in action.

Seamus Padraig > , August 10, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

@attilathehen The RCC is too cucked to be of any use to us anymore. But having grown up in the Bible Belt, I have to confess that I have been thoroughly unimpressed with Protestantism, too. It seems that all of the many, many Protestant denominations in the US basically fall into one of the following categories:

1. Liberal SJW churches, which are no less cucked than the RCC.
2. ZioRapture Christians (like Hagee) who worship at the alter of the 'Chosen People', and think the world's about end (so why bother to save our civilization?)
3. Get-rich-while-you-pray Prosperity Gospel types who basically worship Capitalism and call it God
4. Obscurantists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a powerful allergy to science and logic.

Frankly, I don't see our salvation as a civilization coming from any of these.

As far as universalism is concerned, that's definitely not unique to the RCC. Historically and presently, most Protestant denominations sought and made converts in the Third World, too. After all, it does say in the New Testament, "He knoweth neither Greek nor Jew." The only major exception to this that I can think of would be the Orthodox churches. They accept converts from other nations, but generally don't seek them. Of course, this is probably just a consequence of not having had overseas colonies.

So they blame the "Jews." OCC blames the Jews too. But Betty is correct in that Jews are minor issue in the struggle to save the West.

Hmmm. So you're cool with the (((banksters))), (((media moguls))), (((zionists))), and (((Cultural Marxists)))? Well then, keep on reading the OCC -- you'll wake up eventually.

Seamus Padraig > , August 10, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Priss, where do you live? Detroit? I honest to God don't see all that many black/white MRCs either in Europe or America. I don't deny that the Cultural Marxists are trying to push this, but the only white chicks I see with black guys are massively overweight -- not the sort of chick a normal white man would be seen dead with.

Seamus Padraig > , August 10, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky Same as in Germany. And the German stations are even more wretched than the BBC.

Captain Nemo > , August 10, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

@Corvinus Foaming from the mouth, I see

Anyway, my main point was related to the White "self hatred" underlined in the article.

I suggested that this hatred is not so "self" originated as implied, but has significant outside causes in a specific foreign element promoting White guilt and "self hatred" through its massive influence.

Captain Nemo > , August 10, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

@Priss Factor "White Manhood simply cannot co-exist with Black Manhood.

It wilts and withers at the Negro's feet.

etc "

I would say that this is not such a neutral, self developing phenomenon as you suggest, but that there are significant political forces, dominating the modern Western cultural space, actively and very intentionally destroying the image of a civilized but patriarchal White masculinity, and promoting the general cultural frame of primitivism, inside which, primitive Black masculinity consequently appears dominant.
Black masculine dominance over women (I hesitate to say "patriarchal", because it implies an "archy", a social order nonexisting in that culturally promoted primitivistic paradigm) is not questioned though in that anti White patriarcy propaganda.

At the same time, the affirmation of the patriarchal White masculinity is culturally demonized.

A very specific foreign element plays the main role in this.

I will just supply a collage illustrating that influence through time, at the level of small children:

Sam Shama > , August 10, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

@helena There's a recording preserved at Harvard, of Frost reading Acquainted With the Night , which I listened to only once, yet it still lingers, mostly when I catch that intonation of speech in New Hampshire or at the Cape. I understand why you miss him. Have you had occasion to visit his cottage at Beaconsfield?

Santoculto > , August 10, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

@yyrvjh A jewy hassbara

helena > , August 10, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky Jonathan! Leave Priss alone!! S/he may have a strident style but there is much bioanthropological intelligence behind the long rambling comments.

helena > , August 10, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT

@Sam Shama Robert? No, Peter, the bioanthropologist who had a column here for a while and got into the same contretemps with Ron as Jonathan did regarding wanting to create a commentariat that he could professionally engage with individually like in a schoolroom.

When I was just as far as I could walk
From here today
There was an hour
All still
When leaning with my head against a flower
I heard you talk.
Don't say I didn't for I heard you say
You spoke from that flower on the window sill-
Do you remember what it was you said '

'First tell me what it was you thought you heard.'

'Having found the flower and driven a bee away
I leaned my head
And holding by the stalk
I listened and I thought I caught the word
What was it
Did you call me by my name
Or did you say
Someone said "Come"
I heard it as I bowed.'

'I may have thought as much but not aloud.'

Well so I came."

― Robert Frost, The Poetry of Robert Frost

helena > , August 10, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Moldbug's Cathedral hypothesis laid the blame, I think, on the Unitarian churches. Did you read that? The idea being that once the Trinitarian idea evaporated, it became possible to dissolve all boundaries between people. Christianity became a force for goodness stripped of (identifying) ritual and decoration. Quakers. Lego. Humanitarianism.

Truth > , August 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo Well, you're scratching the surface anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIhBHPyEmzg

Who me > , August 10, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

The Jews want to be the only pure race. They know the white man is there superior. They must mix the white and the rest to be on top.

Sam Shama > , August 10, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT

@helena Thanks, me duck! Love Frost's inimitable simplicity; telephone chat with G'd. Or was it with his love?

Talha > , August 10, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Hey Priss,

Totally agree with you about the loss of morals in society, but this statement

unless they wake up and demand safe space for their manhood to thrive again apart from the Negro

demanding a safe space for one's manhood is about as unmanly as it gets. Do white males really want to publicly make that statement?

Peace.

Rurik > , August 10, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT

@Talha Hey Talha,

I suspect that is just Prisses' way of saying what Thomas Jefferson said not so long ago

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

~ T. Jefferson

my problem isn't so much with the blacks (or Negros or whatever we're supposed to call them) as with the white liberals.

I'd like to start a program called the' Amy Biehl Foundation', that will fund the emigration of white liberals to go live in Johannesburg or Harare, where they can go make their penance where it will do some real good.

I would spend good money to send guys like this over there, and pronto!

and he can go too

Peace

Truth > , August 10, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT

@Talha LMFAO!

Yeah, "let's start a knitting circle where we can all learn to be virulent, masculine men together!"

Marshall Lentini > , August 10, 2017 at 6:07 pm GMT

@helena One winter I lived down the road from the Robert Frost Interpretive Trail in Vermont. Always a good walk, especially useful in banishing a hangover.

I think he sucks and it isn't real poetry, but the signs on the trail were really pleasant, and put it in context.

utu > , August 10, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

@hyperbola It's understandable that in America only Black slavery is talked about and historians who brought up the prominent role of Jews in slavery trade limit themselves to the period from 15 century and down when America was discovered and the largest demand for African slaves was created. Many people are surprised about it and wonder where did these Jews come from and why they happened to be involved in Slavery. They ddi not come out of nowhere. They were involved in slavery trade for many centuries before the discovery of America. One has to go back to the first millennium when Arab Muslims established themselves Northern Africa and Spain. Already then Jews were their favorite slavers, however the slaves were also white Europeans. They were getting slaves throughout whole Europe particularly form countries that haven't become Christian yet and thus could not be protected by the Church because Church at least technically forbid slavery in some places. The largest slave markets were in Prague, Lyon, and Rome where slaves were brought from Germany and countries east of Germany like Poland, Bohemia and so on. At the slave markets males were usually castrated and together with women and children were send further to North Africa and Spain. This practice ended with Christianization of Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Interesting is the story of St. Adalbert (born 952) who fought against slavery in Prague. Later he had to escape to Poland and got killed in Prussia in 997. In 1175 a bronze doors was erected in Gniezno Cathedral in Poland depicting his life where among others you can find these two stories:

He has a vision of Christ telling him to save Christians from slavery by the Jewish traders

He pleads with the Duke of Bohemia for the release of Christians slaves by their Jewish masters

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

Also later when Crimea became a part of Turkish Ottoman empire it became a great center of slave trade where the slaves kidnapped usually by Tartars in Poland, Ukraine, Russia and even Finland were traded via mostly Jewish slavers to Turks and Arabs. Bagdad, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo were full of Slavic and Finn slaves. There are quite a few books about it.

I am bringing this up to broaden the scope and make those who did not know that slavery business was very Jewish from the very beginning. The slaves were white European pagans and Christians.

helena > , August 10, 2017 at 6:58 pm GMT

@Sam Shama I assumed, his love and I think I may have read that he wrote it for some woman or other.

republic > , August 10, 2017 at 6:58 pm GMT

@The Alarmist It is called the Samson Option

helena > , August 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

@Marshall Lentini How about a bit of Spike?

30,000 cannibals sitting down to lunch;
gobble, gobble, gulp, gulp,
munch, munch, munch.

Marshall Lentini > , August 10, 2017 at 7:52 pm GMT

@helena They do not scan a jot,
These errant lines vagous;
Though I do have a soft spot
For the anthropophagous.

<3

Priss Factor > , Website August 10, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

@Talha demanding a safe space for one's manhood is about as unmanly as it gets. Do white males really want to publicly make that statement?

Manhood isn't just about being like some Hulk Hoganish he-man. It's the combination of sense and strengths.

Consider sports. Why do high school sports exist apart from college sports? High school kids will get crushed by college athletes. And why do college sports exist apart from professional sports?
Because pros will crush college athletes.

So, manhood in high school needs safe space from college, and manhood in college needs safe space from professional sports.

Indeed, this is true of humanity itself. Manliness can exist ONLY IN SAFE SPACE from wild animals that are bigger and stronger. This is true of African Negroes themselves. In African tribes, the men act tough with spears and drums and do their dance and stuff. But they do this in their own villages that are guarded from wild animals. Even the toughest Negro is no match for a lion, buffalo, hyena, leopard, or a hippo. Most hippos can outrun Negroes and stomp their heads into Aunt Jemima pancakes.

So, manhood isn't just about raw strength of brutal sort. It can only exist within a certain condition and context. Take manhood among coyotes. Coyote males fight for turf and sexual access. But they fight among their own kind. But when wolves appear on the turf, coyotes run like a mothafuc*a.

Coyote manhood cannot exist among wolves. It can only exist among coyotes. So, coyotes need safe space from wolves in order to be coyote men.

This is true enough in Greek mythology. Heroes are weaker than many monsters and enemies. They must use guile and trickery to win or make it to safety. Theseus, Perseus, and Odysseus all use guile. Theseus had the string. Perseus had the reflective shield. Odysseus made the wooden horse. And Odysseus used trickery and teamwork to get away from the One-eyed giant, Cyclops.

Man to Man, the white man cannot win against the more muscular and more aggressive Negro. Negroes will dominate sports teams while white boy is reduced to cucky benchwarmer who sees best-looking white girls run off with Negro and have mulatto babies.

So, white manhood needs to use guile, unity, solidarity, and other means to gain power and seek safe space from the Negro. It's like what wolves do. A lone wolf's manhood is no match against big moose or big bear or ferocious cougar. Wolf power comes from unity and cooperation. Wolves can have wolfmanhood only within the safety of the pack.

White males are losing because their stupid pride prevented them from making that statement that you're talking about.
If white males had been honest during the Jack Johnson era, they would have said, "Look, that Africa-evolved Negro whose ancestors got tough by chucking spears at hippos are kicking white male butts in US, UK, and Australia. And look at all those white women who reject white male losers and go off to have sex with Johnson the big tough Negro. We can't compete with such Negroes. We need to send them to Africa or give them a separate nation. Our white manhood need sanctuary from Negroes just like Negro manhood need sanctuary from hippos and hyenas."

Then, whites wouldn't be facing the mess they are in.

Also, if EU blocks black colonization on those grounds, white men in Europe can have manhood. But since white men are too 'proud' to say such and pretend races are equal, more Negroes come, beat up white boys, take over sports, and colonize white wombs.

It's like Negro Truth whupped all the slow white boys and impregnated all the white girls at his school. He be delighted in his mastery over the pitiful white boy.

Corvinus > , August 10, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo "Foaming from the mouth, I see "

Actually, I was asking reasonable questions. Care to take time to respond?

"Anyway, my main point was related to the White "self hatred" underlined in the article."

I'm white and do not "hate myself", nor label my fellow whites as "race traitors". I do not feel "guilty" for what white people did in the past.

Moreover, these "significant outside causes" you refer to, is it not conceivable that they are overstated?

Corvinus > , August 10, 2017 at 8:24 pm GMT

@utu "They were involved in slavery trade for many centuries before the discovery of America. One has to go back to the first millennium when Arab Muslims established themselves Northern Africa and Spain."

To what extent were Jews involved? Do you have any source material to provide insight?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 10, 2017 at 8:41 pm GMT

@attilathehen I'm not Jewish and I don't like Derbyshire nor his wife. You've admitted you're part Middle Eastern.

Marshall Lentini > , August 10, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Looks like you're the one who's delighted. Pretty gay, or if you're female, pretty gross.

Truth > , August 10, 2017 at 10:03 pm GMT

@Priss Factor

It's like Negro Truth whupped all the slow white boys and impregnated all the white girls at his school. He be delighted in his mastery over the pitiful white boy.

Bro, did we go to school together? Are you from Queens?

utu > , August 10, 2017 at 10:09 pm GMT

@Corvinus To what extent were Jews involved? – Major, dominant. Muslims were not allowed to operate within the Christian Europe but Jews were permitted.

By the turn of the 6th to the 7th century, Jews had become the chief slave traders in Italy, and were active in Gaelic territories. Pope Gregory the Great issued a ban on Jews possessing Christian slaves, lest the slaves convert to Judaism. By the 9th and 10th centuries, Jewish merchants, sometimes called Radhanites, were a major force in the slave trade continent-wide Jews were one of the few groups who could move and trade between the Christian and Islamic worlds.

Sam Shama > , August 10, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT

@helena Lol. You guessed well. He was looking for Spike, the best remedy for hangovers as they say!

anonyomous > , August 10, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT

@anony-mouse Same as the faker
both have wet dreams about Russia and hate the USA
both live in the USA wawawawawawawawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

anonyomous > , August 10, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

@anonymous Nice satire !!!!!
Very cleverly crafted . Judging by the comments that followed , you evidently trolled plenty of people.
Godspeed and thanks for the laughs

anonyomous > , August 10, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT

@hyperbola

A month ago, after reading a desperate cry for help from the National Coalition of Christian Organisations in Palestine (NCCOP) addressed to the World Council of Churches, I emailed eight churches in my locality asking whether that heart-rending appeal had trickled down to them at parish level ..

I think that these examples are far worse than anything happening to Christians in Israel. Did you inform your churches about this mass murder of Christians and burning of churches in the Islamic world ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jul/27/where-in-the-world-is-it-worst-place-to-be-a-christian

The 25 worst places to be a Christian. Israel is not on the list but Iran , Egypt , Sudan , Somalia ,Iraq ,Pakistan and everyones favorite " Syria" are all on the list .

http://blackchristiannews.com/2017/03/numerous-christian-sites-historical-churches-destroyed-in-iran/

https://www1.cbn.com/globallane-44

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/egypt-church-explosion/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/world/meast/egypt-church-attacks/index.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/37-churches-destroyed-in-egypt-authorities-do-little-or-nothing-according-to-human-rights-watch-video-102865/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/20/islamist-hardliners-attack-indonesian-churches/

https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/07/04/out-sight/endemic-abuse-and-impunity-papuas-central-highlands

Grandpa Charlie > , August 10, 2017 at 11:19 pm GMT

@Santoculto Santoculto says to GrandpaCharlie:

'I already watched and this video [Chinese engineer disses African who is about to explain how the 'White Man' caused all the problems of Black Africa] or this point of view, invariably correct, don't change mine. Conservs luv [to] "rationalize" their own historical faults."

Every human loves to rationalize. It's one of many cognitive communicative behaviors that characterize humanity. I guess that's what you are doing when you say that what the Chinese critic of African culture says – although "invariably correct" – fails to change your views? So you consider that the Chinese fellow in the video is a "conserv"? Or are y9u just saying that you have already been of the opinion that when Africans blame colonialist exploitation for their lack of progress or development, that that's a bogus argument?

Grandpa Charlie > , August 10, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT

I'D DRUTHER BE A NIGGER THAN A PO' WHITE MAN

(traditional song, not attributed, but a version of it appears in The Fiddle Book by Oklahoma fiddler, Marion Thede, which has music and lyrics to more than 150 old time fiddle tunes)

The po' white man, the po' white man,

Livin' up nawth in a cold white land.

I'd druther be a nigger than a po' white man.

###

The po' white man, the po' white man,

Never druv a Cadillac or heerd a jazz band.

I'd druther be a nigger than a po' white man.

###

The po' white man, the po' white man,

Never et chitterlins or possum in the pan,

I'd druther be a nigger than a po' white man.

Corvinus > , August 10, 2017 at 11:58 pm GMT

@utu The source you neglected to cite comes from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13798-slave-trade

from 1906. Please note that the same source stated that despite Church rule, many Christians also partook in the slave trade, with church officials in one part of Europe collecting taxes on this endeavor.
How many Christians compared to Jews? I don't know. But consider that Jews were a much smaller percentage of the total population in Christian Europe compared to Muslim dominate regions in the Middle East. No one knows exact numbers, but 250,000 Jews in a community of 10-15 million people has been a common estimate.

One could infer from this source that non-Jewish involvement was also "major, dominant".

https://medium.com/the-history-buff/slavery-in-medieval-italy-cb189ae45933

J.M. > , August 11, 2017 at 1:44 am GMT

@German_reader Well, you have proven that your understanding of Christianity is really poor. If one starts wandering away from his area of expertise, well, one is bound to be exposed as fool or iliterate. I guess that German education standards when it comes to the teaching of history have sunk very low.

Starting with your rather poor or misleading interpretation of the verse where Jesus states that whoever loves his family or kin more than HIM is not worthy of HIM. Your statement is rather ironic if we were to apply it to the current situation of the West where, if a revolution is to occur in order to save it, Europeans will have to start purging from OUR OWN PEOPLE and families the filth that taints our societies BEFORE expelling the invaders. There is no way out of it specially in a place like Germany.

By the way how a community that lives with the moto "if any man will not work, neither let him eat" can be classified as communist? Specially by someone who comes from a society that has forsaken reason and history and whose TV channels and media 24/7 bleat about how accepting Germany and Europe should be of immigrants that share nothing with Europe but a long history of hatred? From country that feeds millions who don't work through taxation of another dwindling group that still numbers in the millions (who forcibly support able bodied people who don't work)? Sorry pal but in this discussion you win the prize of the Irrational and/or iliterate argument of the day.

jacques sheete > , August 11, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT

@Wally

There will be nobody to pay other peoples bills.

Wally, you are usually correct, but speaking of bills, guess who's responsible for indebting the world?

Erebus > , August 11, 2017 at 3:03 am GMT

@Bragadocious

Um, this story was about immigration, not NATO. Obviously, immigration is an internal German matter.

Not so fast, Braga.
A month into the bombing of Yugoslavia, SACEUR Wesley Clark notoriously told a CNN reporter:

"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."

It's unclear why a SACEUR would comment on immigration policy at all, much less repeatedly use "we" if NATO had no say in the matter. If the patently criminal bombing of Yugoslavia didn't "force" Merkel, it surely coloured the thinking of not only German, but every other Euro politician. At any rate, his statement shows clearly that NATO was an active participant in a program that had started well before 1999.

denk > , August 11, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

@anonymous Priss Factor is prolly watching too much
Black on White porns.

utu > , August 11, 2017 at 4:02 am GMT

@Erebus Interesting. I do not remember hearing this. What's ironic is that Yugoslavia was a multi ethnic state at some point. Its disintegration with the help of NATO created several mono-ethnic states. I could see him saying it when Kosovaars staged an exodus claiming that they were being ethnically cleansed. Whether they were being cleansed is another story. The end result was that mono-ethnic Kosovo was created.

attilathehen > , August 11, 2017 at 4:28 am GMT

@Anonymous I'm not Middle Eastern. You compliment Derbyshire all the time (especially about his writing – you did this recently for one of his articles) and I remember the comment where you said you were 1/2 Jewish. Also, when I commented that Macron's wife was white and not Asian (like Derbyshire's China woman) you told me to lay off Derbyshire and his wife.

attilathehen > , August 11, 2017 at 4:31 am GMT

@Who me The Jews are not a pure race. They are a miscegenated meshugah melange of Afro-Asia-European mixtures.

attilathehen > , August 11, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT

@Seamus Padraig I'm not cool with the banksters, cultural Marxists, etc. What I said is that I blame the RCC/Zioevangizers for giving the "chosen" their supposed power. The RCC/Zioevangizers think the Jews are smarter. They are not. But their universal Christianity keeps them from addressing the JQuestion because then race would be involved. The RCC/Zioevangizers will not criticize blacks/Asians. That's why I say, collapse the RCC/Zioevangizers and you take care of the Jew/Muslim/black/Asian problems.

Erebus > , August 11, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT

@utu

Its disintegration with the help of NATO created several mono-ethnic states.

Yeah, more than one pundit has commented on that unintended consequence.
Frankly, it's unclear to me what NATO's real purpose was. Their accusations against Milosovic et al, via which they invoked their hypocritical R2P doctrine, were eventually proved false. I never saw an analysis that explained it satisfactorily, but I haven't looked very hard for one either.

Dieter Kief > , August 11, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT

"Siebald" is Sebald, no?

Try Enzensbeger! Start with Hammerstein, then Civil War , then – – – Mausoleum, then other poems and a few essays.

Seamus Padraig > , August 11, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

@yyrvjh FYI: Mr. Unz forbids commenters from using multiple handles ("sock puppets").

Seamus Padraig > , August 11, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT

@helena The Unis are basically just another cuck church. But I really don't see them as the driving force of SJWism. After all, is it they who control the banks, the media, education and foreign policy? No, not really.

Seamus Padraig > , August 11, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

@Rurik Very disturbing graphics, Rurik. But thanks for posting them. Sukant Chandan is an especially vile POS. And BTW, I totally agree with your proposal!

anarchyst > , August 11, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

@attilathehen There are those of us in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) that do not subscribe to the current teachings on the supremacy of the jews. We are Catholics who,do not subscribe to the changes that the Vatican II Ecumenical Council attempted to impose on us. It is no secret that jews and Protestants were involved in this "Council" and wrought changes in order to bring down the Church.
Jews DID take responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. No amount of "modernization" of the Catholic Church can change that fact.

Rurik > , August 11, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

@Erebus

Frankly, it's unclear to me what NATO's real purpose was. Their accusations against Milosovic et al, via which they invoked their hypocritical R2P doctrine, were eventually proved false. I never saw an analysis that explained it satisfactorily, but I haven't looked very hard for one either.

this one from commenter Kiza is as good as I've seen:

the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).

A final important reason was that the US intervention in the Balkans created a new industry called Regime Change Industry (or should it be called an NGO Ecosystem). This is the time when Gene Sharp finished his book on "non-violent" regime-change and color-revolutions. Therefore, the illegal US intervention in the Balkans was the first time this NGO Ecosystem was fully deployed. After the subsequent color revolutions and regime changes , the travelling NGO EcoSystem now probably employs around 300-500,000 people, the Westerners as management and consultants, the locals on the coalface. This is why the regime-changes cannot stop – because there is now a whole industry depending on them.

These are the positive outcomes for US from its interventions in the Balkans. We should not forget also that Israel benefited greatly by taking focus off itself, because the Bosnian war united temporarily both Shiites and Sunnis against the Serbs.

All of the subsequent US interventions and regime changes used experiences from the wars in the Balkans, that is the benefit I am referring to.

Talha > , August 11, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Hey Priss,

I was talking about manhood. You are mixing up "manhood" and "maleness". There are plenty of males running around, but a dearth of men.

Men recognize and honor the sanctity of other men – especially when it comes to the women under their care and guardianship. This requires self-discipline and self-control. The West lost much of this with the sexual revolution and thus is now dealing with various males running around (including ours) trying to hump things like the wolves and coyotes you speak about. And thus you need to cage the different breeds/species off from each other.

In the past, men would recognize the role of the father and access to any of the women under his care would have to proceed with his blessings. Men did this and knew that it would be reciprocated when they became fathers and others came to seek the hand of the women under their care. This is not ancient practice – there are people alive today who saw these rules at work and the societies that these built. Whether black or white, the suitor had to approach the father and, whether black or white, the father was supposed to look out for his daughter's interest in making sure she wasn't going to get into a detrimental relationship because the purpose was marriage – not sex. And society honored that because they knew how important the family institution was.

Someone like Jack Johnson was an anomaly like Erol Flynn or any other man of fame.

What I keep hearing from you is that you don't necessarily want to roll back the sexual revolution, you just don't want to share White women with the darkies – though I don't hear you mentioning anything about White males colonizing darkie wombs (a couple of my cousins are married to White men). Womb colonization only goes one way? That was never a problem in the past because of the role of the father who could interdict a pairing that he felt was culturally incompatible (White to Black, Italian to Irish, WASP to Catholic, etc.) – but you don't want to bring that back because then no more fun times for you in getting with their daughters left and right without consequences because fathers might block you for not being serious or prepared enough or have enough income, etc.

Eventually (I hope) some semblance of traditional manhood will arise again among the Whites in the West (and the phrase "patriarchy" won't be considered a pejorative) and the structures and institutions that it informs, and its arrival may resemble something like this:

https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY?t=1m

Peace.

Talha > , August 11, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT

@Rurik Hey Rurik,

Well, Jefferson certainly had a more intellectual way to approach the subject, eh? I got no problems with funding White liberals to help them resettle in the third world if that'll help them finally deal with their guilt issues. I would however also like to see a bunch of neo-cons and politicians prosecuted for destroying those third world countries within our living memory and sent to the noose or to jail.

Peace.

Rurik > , August 11, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

Sukant Chandan is an especially vile POS

certainly looks like it

agree with your proposal!

we can start a foundation!

we'll advertise on moveon.ass and dailykos and offer trips to Liberia and Rwanda. They can all get culturally equalized!

Parents whose daughters get Amy Biehl'd will have to pay more of course. You don't get that kind of absolution for your guilt unless you pay for it. I mean if the church can sell indulgences, then why can't we?!

It'll sort of be like the Christians making pilgrimages to Israel to bolster their salvation. We'll use the 'Christians to Israel' as our fund-raising model. We can even go straight to the churches and offer trips to Somalia. Just think, the Christians in Minnesota won't have to settle all those Somalis in their communities, they can just take a junket and purge their guilt in one fell swoop.

I can try to arrange for this Somali to be waiting, and we could advertise for liberals and Christians both!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/leftist-norwegian-politician-gets-raped-by-somalian-begs-for-him-not-to-be-deported/

who'd have ever thought we could bring the religious right together with the SJW liberals in a cash cow for our endeavor?!

it's pure genius, no?

Truth > , August 11, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

@Talha

What I keep hearing from you is that you don't necessarily want to roll back the sexual revolution, you just don't want to share White women with the darkies –

No Talha, as a Feller who enjoys the company of Fellers, I don't think that would be in his best interest

Anon > , Disclaimer August 11, 2017 at 2:40 pm GMT

@Talha I haven't read Priss's comment, so I'm sure there's some context, but this sounds painful:

various males running around (including ours) trying to hump things like the wolves and coyotes you speak about.

Talha > , August 11, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

@Anon LOL! Well, if you interpret it that way.

Though – I can see this being a new front on the sexual liberation front – inter-species consensual sex rights!!!

Rurik > , August 11, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

@Talha

White liberals to help them resettle in the third world if that'll help them finally deal with their guilt issues.

Seamus and I are working on a venture and I think we're accepting partners. It's sure to be a financial triumph, and save tones of souls and expunge unbearable guilt in the process!

we're going to bridge the chasm between the religious right and the progressive left and make lots and lots of sexually frustrated Somalis and guilt ridden liberals and do-gooder Christians all manifestly happy (and satisfied! ; ) all while we're cashing in on the good works!

it isn't wrong to make money while you're 'doing good' in the world, is it?

I would however also like to see a bunch of neo-cons and politicians prosecuted for destroying those third world countries within our living memory and sent to the noose or to jail.

I've been told I harbor too much wrath for John McCain. That to wish suffering on such a person is a sin, and I'll be worse off for it. True perhaps, but yet

I would have zero problem with sending every single neocon war pig criminal to meet their fate at the hands of the people whom they've so diabolically wronged.

I'd send Bill O'Rielly to Fallujah

I'd send Hillary to Benghazi

I'd send Dick Cheney and W. Bush to hell itself if I could.

and all the rest of them too

they're a vile stain upon the character of America, (if anything's left of it) and an affront to simple human decency. May their souls rot in hell for all eternity. And may God have mercy on all of us who've watched with horror at what they have done (and why they've done it), and on so terribly many innocent men, women and children.

It's beyond monstrous, and I only hope somehow we end this zio-madness in our time.

That is why, IMHO that the American people elected a guy like Trump, for whom there isn't much respect as a noble paragon of virtue, but in whom we hold so much hope!

I pray he's an unlikely savior of sorts, who can leash the Fiend. If not him, who?

Truth > , August 11, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT

@Talha You laugh, my friend, but the Overseers are way ahead of you:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

Talha > , August 11, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT

@Truth Oh man – gross!!! Is there a way to add a "Barf" notation??!!

attilathehen > , August 12, 2017 at 1:28 am GMT

@anarchyst First, I am a cradler RCCer (post-Vatican II) and my family has been RCC for hundreds of years.

Do you accept black/Asian priests-popes? Once you answer this, I can proceed to tell you the status of the RCC.

Chris Dakota > , August 12, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT

I would never get a deformed dog. So many the show psycho ring has ruined.
Would you bring into the world a dog that can't walk with ease and watch it suffer?
NO!
The white male is superior, he won't be wiped out, he won't disappear.
He is always under attack for the above reasons and he always rises to the occasion.
btw I am not a man, I am the natural mate of the white man.

Truth > , August 12, 2017 at 6:52 am GMT

@Chris Dakota

btw I am not a man, I am the natural mate of the white man.

Oh, are you Chinese or Filipina?

Marshall Lentini > , August 12, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT

You people are weird as f-ck.

hyperbola > , August 12, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig That is all true and probably sephardic groups were the main practitioners/purveyors of slavery in the British, Dutch and Portuguese colonies. The "financiers" however were mainly in London and Amsterdam (also partly sephardic).

Rothschild and Freshfields founders linked to slavery

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4pYui4rbC

Niall Ferguson, Laurence A.Tisch professor of history at Harvard and author of The World's Banker: A History of the House of Rothschild, said the documents showed "how pervasive slavery was in the structure of British wealth in 1830".
______________________________________

Remember also that Liverpool was probably the biggest shipping center involved in the "three-way" trade.

International Slavery Museum, Liverpool museums

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/

Larry Lawrence > , August 12, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT

@Stephen Paul Foster There is no "Left". The people you are referring to are those who have been manipulated into service of the Jewish agenda.

Jews have controlled this demographic for centuries. ( Liberté, égalité, fraternité!)
Look for them wherever meritocratic Whites are being slaughtered.

The word to use is "Jews".

Seamus Padraig > , August 13, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT

@Rurik Again, Rurik: well put!

Seamus Padraig > , August 13, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

@hyperbola All very true. But I was just referring to how modern slavery began, circa 1500 AD. That was a little before the Rothschild's time.

[Aug 13, 2017] Neoconservative Intellectuals and Me

Notable quotes:
"... Pick up a Neoconservative book on your shelf or at your local library and you will quickly find that it is almost impossible to get through the first chapter or two without coming face to face with blatant contradictions, blatant lies, blatant fabrications, blatant hypocrisy, blatant double standards, and obvious inconsistencies. ..."
"... Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future ..."
Aug 13, 2017 | www.veteranstoday.com

These people always take great risks to defend their ideologically incoherent and essentially diabolical plan and always leave the world in a mess. And it is always a blast to watch them fall into their own political traps and blatant contradictions.

Pick up a Neoconservative book on your shelf or at your local library and you will quickly find that it is almost impossible to get through the first chapter or two without coming face to face with blatant contradictions, blatant lies, blatant fabrications, blatant hypocrisy, blatant double standards, and obvious inconsistencies.

For example, Jewish columnist Ben Shapiro writes books such as Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future , in which he complains about "oral sex, masturbation, and homosexual activity" being taught in the classroom.Shapiro also goes after the culture, which he says preaches that "our sexuality should not and cannot be contained by any system of morality No form of sexual expression may be condemned, and all must be taught." supported the Trotskyite group the Pussy Riot , which had a pornographic performance at a public museum in Russia. The same Shapiro condemned the Russian government for punishing the violent group for desecrating Christ the Savior Cathedral in Russia.

Neocon magazine World Affairs condemns Vladimir Putin for his alleged crime against dissents, [5] but the same magazine condemns dissents such as Edward Snowden for revealing what the NSA has been doing to Americans.

Neocon shills and puppets like Ann Coulter pretentiously say that they fight for life, but they have no remorse for slaughtering and mercilessly torturing innocent people in the Middle East. Coulter loves to talk about "Democrat sex scandal," but she rails against those who spend some time talking about sex abuse at Abu Ghraib, [8] a prison complex near Baghdad where prisoners were literally sodomized by American forces.

If you were trained in logic and have little patience with complete nonsense, if your allegiance is to the moral order and practical reason and ultimate truth, then you are going to be stunned by what's passing for clear thinking these days. If truth matters to you, then you will be very angry!for good reason.

[Aug 11, 2017] Colluding with Foreign Spies--It Apparently Ain t the Trumps by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times . ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria. ..."
"... In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow. ..."
"... The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong. ..."
"... The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a President elect), John McCain is more at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain was directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding President-elect Donald Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the United Kingdom.

This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI nominee Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell on a fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian lawyer had sought a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton, admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following :

" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s

But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is the one who was fooling around with a foreign intelligence organization.

What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times .

Aleksej Gubarev , a Cypriot based chief executive of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed suit against Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation over their role in the publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald Trump's purported activities involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during last year's U.S. election.

The businessman, Aleksej Gubarev , claims he and his companies were falsely linked in the dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of Democratic Party figures.

Gubarev , 36, also is seeking unspecified damages from Buzzfeed and its top editor, Ben Smith, in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami. Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court.

Rowan Scarborough obtained a copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both illuminating and damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in April). This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following facts:

1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June 2016).

2. Fusion GPS is run by three former Wall Street Journal reporters: Glenn Simpson; Tom Catan; and Peter Fritsch. ( According to the New York Times, Fusion GPS was originally hired by a Republican donor – who has not been publicly identified – to dig up dirt on Trump in 2015. After Trump won the nomination, the firm began working with Democrats and honed in on Trump's links to Russia.)

3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.

4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.

5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator McCain hard copies of the memoranda.

6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the following claims:

  • Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin operatives.
  • Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
  • In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
  • Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's team and the Kremlin.

[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in Prague.]

7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS (via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.

Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this salacious material to FBI director, James Comey.

As I pointed out in my previous piece ( Trump Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . . ), the Steele Dossier now stands completely discredited because the Trump Jr. emails provide prima facie evidence that there was no regular, sustained contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was no need to meet with an unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier, already had been delivered to the Trump team.

The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated. Circumstantial evidence opens them to charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks. Spreading a lie that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over the last six months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.

McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

You can read the full story here . The hysteria on the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the Trumps shows a growing potential for blowback. As more actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations. Such a development would leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.

IssacNewton -> iowa steve... , 17 July 2017 at 08:21 PM

I agree that Birtherism was an unethical strategy (e.g., when did you stop molesting children). I would point out the Hillary Clinton used this as an issue against Obama in 2008. She published photos of him in native african garb and had her surrogetes us this against up through the Democrat Convention. It was a strategy of both Trump and Clinton.
I'veBeenANaughtyBoy , 16 July 2017 at 06:07 AM
Slightly OT but mentioned by Steve & Iowa Steve above. I watched an hour or so long You Tube video 3 or 4 months ago about how Sheriff Joe Arpio (??sp) had got a couple of investigators to look into the Obama birth Cert brouhaha & to try & put it to bed, one way or another. The result was what I considered to be (I am not any expert in document forensics) a pretty convincing explanation of how the Birth Cert that the White House put forward was a forgery & how it had been falsified.

They even had tracked down (& named the woman) the birth cert that Obamas had been based on. It was convincing.

The other thing that sold the investigation to me as being genuine was there was nothing - nothing, in the MSM about it. I took that to mean that they didn't want to try & debunk it as it would attract attention to the video. I didn't pay over much attention to the scandal back when, & only watched the vid as I was laid up that day. Since then I've also come across a "Barry Soetoro" foreign student I.D. card from Columbia U with a young Obama pictured on it.

DianaLC , 14 July 2017 at 02:30 PM
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan.

I understand that foreign governments -- and probably mostly Russia -- try desperately to influence our elections in their favor. Just as I understand that our government officials do the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone who really, really believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a Pollyanna in that regard.

But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human nature. At my age, the reality of human nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to remember.

Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold my nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible. I could go on, but won't).

The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the beginning. I was originally flabbergasted by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person. But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working, Americans who live in the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" people. Their votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he wanted to "drain the swamp." We knew what that meant. We know now that avoiding the machinations of swamp people is harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give the Trump boys some grace, but not the smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.

Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the swamp drained and the leaks plugged and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take the NYT and WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage liners, shredded packaging stuffing, even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any news story about it. Heck, don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to the commentary. Write your senators and representatives about your views of the issues; then go on with leading good American lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who is in charge.

Anna -> David Habakkuk ... , 14 July 2017 at 01:37 PM
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."

This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by Nekrasov), and, by association, to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years together" by Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west for their harsh critique of the Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov).

No publishing house in the US and UK dares to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares to show "The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.

blowback -> Fred... , 14 July 2017 at 12:18 PM
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects from the Fusion GPS garbage. As for Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his election platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president pretty much gets to decide foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?

Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11.

Greco , 14 July 2017 at 10:49 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4690834/Don-Trump-Jr-lawyer-linked-dirty-dossier-firm.html

Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned as a result of the Magnitsky Act. That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried to cut a deal back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230 million fine was later reduced to only $6 million days before his case was set for trial this past May.

Sam Peralta -> David Habakkuk ... , 14 July 2017 at 10:14 AM
David

" In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. "

This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the judiciary always gives a pass when the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect legal doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance and misfeasance. There's a reason why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the general public.

What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?

I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria.

David Habakkuk , 14 July 2017 at 09:31 AM
PT,

There is a further lawsuit against BuzzFeed, brought by the Alfa Group oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan. The summons, dated 26 May 2017 is at

http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/buzzfeed.pdf

Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence' in the London suit to which you linked.

(See http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160622854.html .)

Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until recently a senior barrister at the BBC is of any relevance I do not know.

There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is absolutely basic journalistic 'tradecraft' to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before publication. The question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'

A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I think have almost certainly said that the memorandum on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a 'fair business risk.'

Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been omitted from the published version of the dossier – particularly as this would not have materially reduced the 'information operations' impact of the document.

As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his suing to zero, and again, would not have materially reduced the impact of the dossier.

Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those who run Fusion – and one of the company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former 'Financial Times' journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky wicket without needing to consult a lawyer.

At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons, including the possibility that they could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up.

Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of contradictions, what would seem reasonably clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting question.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in the back. So Steele is trying to rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not intended for publication at all, and that the reason for their publication was a violation of a confidentiality agreement by Fusion.

Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that, contrary to what it says, he was never an 'associate' of Orbis.

(See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/09/comey-testimony-leaves-questions-unanswered-about-anti-trump-dossier.html .)

In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow.

The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong.

Anna -> LeaNder... , 14 July 2017 at 09:21 AM
More on the same, this time on the infamous Magnitsky Act: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/13/how-russia-gate-met-the-magnitsky-myth/#comment-274252
Fred -> steve... , 14 July 2017 at 08:49 AM
Steve,

"Just can't bring myself to get worked up over this..."

Subverting the constitutional order is a-ok if the guy duly elected is a jerk. What a wonderful standard of conduct.

Anna -> steve... , 13 July 2017 at 11:32 PM
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here we have a documented case of a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives" (including McCain and the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their wish was heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.

"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long time ago."

Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism. i

iowa steve -> steve... , 13 July 2017 at 10:46 PM
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the current Russiaphobia.

The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line.

Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary.

[Aug 11, 2017] Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US

Old bitter enemy of Russia probably became afraid of growing China and decided that splitting Russia and China is essential for the USA hegemony survival. Other thatn that it is way too big change in anti-soviet dinosaur Zbig thinking -- leopard can't change his spots.
Notable quotes:
"... Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'. ..."
"... They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. ..."
"... In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told! ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

nurse.comic | Aug 7, 2017 1:02:13 PM | 96

I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working constructively

>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict.

As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".

Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US.

I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 3:12:30 PM | 100

At #96:

or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'.

They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia.

He is after all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?

In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!

[Aug 11, 2017] The US goal in xUSSR region and developing countries is really to make a transition to neoliberal corporate governance and enable exploitation of countries resources for wealthy American conglomerates and other multinationals

Aug 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

August 5, 2017

marknesop , August 5, 2017 at 2:42 pm

There's nothing wrong with a policy which says sovereign decisions are a matter for the country's people to decide but to offer a helping hand to encourage 'good behaviours' which are likely to result in a minimum of disruption and possibly danger to a nation's neighbours. And here is where the slippery slope comes in. Devotees of American exceptionalism argue – often with good conscience – that this is all Washington is doing; trying to help ease the transition to a market economy, or whatever, pick your meme. It is difficult to prove that the aim is really to make a transition to corporate governance and enable exploitation for wealthy American conglomerates, and a lot of people on both sides get to throw the 'conspiracy theorist' term around.

[Aug 11, 2017] Iraq mission accomlished 27 Years and several trillion dollars later by William Rivers Pitt

Notable quotes:
"... Twenty-seven years. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, at least. Trillions of dollars squandered? Hardly. This was not an accident. ..."
"... Every bullet fired, every bomb dropped, every missile launched, every gallon of fuel burned, every HumVee destroyed by an IED, every helicopter shot down, every boot on the ground, every private military contractor's paycheck, every MRE, every Kevlar vest, every pill, every helmet, every uniform, every body bag, every coffin and every American flag draped over it throughout all those many long years of war represents money taken from you and given to a small group of people you'll never meet. They hide much of that money offshore so it won't be taxed, and use the rest to buy politicians who tell you the country is broke, we're about austerity now, so no more school lunches for your kids and no more Medicaid for your mother. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

We have been at war in Iraq, in one form or another, for 27 years. The best estimates of the cost for all this systematic butchery, combined with the expense of simultaneous war in Afghanistan, reach into the trillions of dollars.

... ... ...

For the historical record: There was the initial build-up of Desert Shield, followed by Desert Storm and its lethal cloud of depleted uranium. There were the sanctions/bombing Clinton years when we blew up sewage treatment plants and denied children vaccines in an ongoing act of biological warfare. Then, there was the second Bush invasion based on unprosecuted criminal lies, the long massacre of occupation and torture, the Obama occupation and drone war, the drawdown, the draw-back-up because of ISIS. Now, there is the current trembling mayhem of air strikes, car bombs, militias, factions, confusion and an overwhelming ocean of refugees.

No one in politics or the media seems capable of recognizing this series of events for what it truly is: One large event with a tangible beginning, a middle and no end in sight. There is no dicing it up. It is all of a piece, one long war, the longest by miles in our nation's history. The most recent invasion and occupation saw nearly 5,000 US service members killed and close to 40,000 wounded. That casualty count does not include the many thousands of veterans who have returned home after multiple deployments suffering from a variety of maladies caused by prolonged exposure to chemicals, combat and carnage.

... ... ...

Twenty-seven years. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, at least. Trillions of dollars squandered? Hardly. This was not an accident. It was, and continues to be, a spectacular payday.

Every bullet fired, every bomb dropped, every missile launched, every gallon of fuel burned, every HumVee destroyed by an IED, every helicopter shot down, every boot on the ground, every private military contractor's paycheck, every MRE, every Kevlar vest, every pill, every helmet, every uniform, every body bag, every coffin and every American flag draped over it throughout all those many long years of war represents money taken from you and given to a small group of people you'll never meet. They hide much of that money offshore so it won't be taxed, and use the rest to buy politicians who tell you the country is broke, we're about austerity now, so no more school lunches for your kids and no more Medicaid for your mother.

William Rivers Pitt is a senior editor and lead columnist at Truthout. He is also a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of three books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, The Greatest Sedition Is Silence and House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation. His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with Dahr Jamail, is available now on Amazon. He lives and works in New Hampshire.

[Aug 11, 2017] Russia warns US not to meddle in its elections by Doug Stanglin

Notable quotes:
"... "I do not know what plans the US embassy has, ​​but there were many episodes when American diplomats were seen in illegal activities," Lavrov said, the state-owned TASS news agency reported . "The relevant services should take appropriate measures." ..."
"... "But if this happens, we have our laws, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which prescribes very specifically what diplomats can do and what not," he said. Lavrov said. "We will follow it and our laws." ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from USA TODAY

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov warned Washington on Friday against trying to meddle in next month's Russian regional elections.

"I do not know what plans the US embassy has, ​​but there were many episodes when American diplomats were seen in illegal activities," Lavrov said, the state-owned TASS news agency reported . "The relevant services should take appropriate measures."

Lavrov, who was on a visit to Russia's Vladimir region, said the American embassy employs many Russian citizens. According to the Vienna Convention, he noted, the embassy staff in Russia can only employ technical workers, like drivers, typists, stenographers, and cannot engage in "diplomatic activities, including political aspects."

"But it was not uncommon for U.S. embassy staff to travel to different regions on the spot, conduct public inquiries: how they relate to the governor, in general to the federal center," he said. "In such situations, we politely ask our American colleagues to terminate these people's contracts."

... ... ...

He also cast his warnings against a backdrop of charges by U.S. intelligence services that Russia used cyber activity and spread of disinformation to undermine the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

"I hope that after all the unfounded accusations against us -- because not a single fact was presented within 10 months -- all the intensity over this topic by the American establishment will force them to think again," Lavrov said.

"But if this happens, we have our laws, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which prescribes very specifically what diplomats can do and what not," he said. Lavrov said. "We will follow it and our laws."

[Aug 11, 2017] America's Ukraine Hypocrisy by Ted Galen Carpenter

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Aug 06, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
There is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Multiple investigations are taking place, and Moscow's conduct was a major justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just passed. Some furious political figures and members of the media insist that the Putin government's interference constitutes an act of war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks .

Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs of dozens of countries !including many democracies. An egregious example occurred in Ukraine during the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.

Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in 2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in a flagrant fashion to the advantage of his political party. That high-handed behavior and legendary corruption alienated large portions of Ukraine's population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented significant market-oriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the European Union's terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer, angry demonstrators filled Kiev's Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in other cities.

Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair !about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.

Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right-wing Svoboda Party , and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.

But McCain's actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As Ukraine's political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the anti-Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5, she handed out cookies to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.

The extent of the Obama administration's meddling in Ukraine's politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post-Yanukovych government. The U.S-favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that "Yats is the guy" who would do the best job.

Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine's lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country!and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations!to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.

Washington's conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer-term basis. Nuland stated that "I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary." She added that what Yatseniuk needed "is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside."

The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine's political turbulence . Pyatt stated bluntly that "we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition]." Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president's national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him "probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden's willing." Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government.

A February 24, 2014, Washington Post editorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The "moves were democratic," the Washington Post concluded, and "Kiev is now controlled by pro-Western parties."

It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country!especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government!an ouster that occurred not only with Washington's blessing, but apparently with its assistance.

That episode, as well as earlier ones involving Italy, France and other democratic countries, should be kept in mind the next time U.S. political leaders or the media publicly fume about Russia's apparent interference in America's 2016 elections. One can legitimately condemn some aspects of Moscow's behavior, but the force of America's moral outrage is vitiated by the stench of U.S. hypocrisy.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

konkretnovnature , August 6, 2017 7:36 PM

yeah, when americans do it (not JUST it but organizing an outright coup) - it's for democracy...

but when the losing party in american elections had to explain why it had failed
used a ghost of russian hackers (instead of recognizing that their identity politics completely alienated the majority of real good americans - white people) - it's an attack on democracy

hey, democratic party! how 'bout letting your servers to be finally examined by fbi?

Roy Tyrell , August 6, 2017 11:21 PM

But... Ted...

American's are GOD's chosen people...!!! it's all right there in the Bible...!!! When America does it - it is all with HIS blessing... when others do it (particularly Russia) they are acting in concert with Satan...!

In all seriousness... every empire acts in it's own interests. What makes America so God awful insufferable is it's self righteousness... Surely Washington doesn't believe it's own bulls---... or does it...??? That truly is a scary thought.

The British never tried convince anyone they were doing the Lord's work. They spared their subjects self righteous lectures (for the most part)

A Saudi prince said it best: America is arrogance unbounded

chris chuba , August 7, 2017 12:24 PM

The author fails to mention that Yanukovich even agreed to early elections in exchange for calling off security forces in order to defuse tensions. In return, armed gangs occupied Parliament buildings, forced him to flee the country, and organized a hasty vote to remove him from office. Is it any wonder that the ethnic Russians got the message that their vote didn't count anymore? We immediately recognized the new govt by denying that this was a coup.

Ukraine would have been much more stable had their been elections instead of a coup d'etat.

[Aug 10, 2017] Former President Hamid Karzai Claims There Is No Difference Between ISIS and America

Notable quotes:
"... If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance. ..."
"... Russia has decided to develop a broad, strategic relationship with Iran, partly because of their overlapping oil interests in Central Asia, American officials say. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

RenoDino | Aug 5, 2017 1:31:17 PM | 73

We resurrected the Taliban so we could justifiably stay in Afghanistan for one thousand years fighting them to a standstill while we occupy the country and make it a colony and a forward basecamp in the heart of central Asia on the border of China and in the path of the new Silk Road. The American people didn't get the memo because it was never sent.
Noirette | Aug 5, 2017 1:51:50 PM | 75
"Linear" or some kind of poor thinking, planning?

No, I think not.

There is nothing subtle or complicated here. US wars are simply killing sprees, rapine, destruction, torture, etc. for let's say one part sadistic thrills There is no goal except to dominate sand niggers for ex. Steal etc. and grab money, have adventures, rape, etc. plus inserting the other profiteers, more institutionalised, an endless list, US 'aid' orgs, reconstructions, criminals in cahoots with the US, the drug trade, human trafficking, banking of a kind, etc. As well as thus at home the need for funding the milit-ind. complex, arms trade, security cos, etc. etc. Disaster capitalism or lets call it outright gangsterim at its most chaotic and covert -- nothing whatsover to do with winning a war.

Afgh. is a prime example, heh what 15 years now, nothing is won or lost, everything goes on underground (drug trade = no 1.), and Trump complains that the 'fantastic minerals' (which were often quoted as a reason to enter Afgh. as if US citizens would just agree to kill off ppl to steal their stuff, well allrighty ) are not being exploited by the US after all these years of 'war' he has a point, but everyone knows he is naive and old style type colonialism is passé, that is not what it is all about.

Iraq is similar, *whooo* Iraq has huge oil reserves and the US had to! grab it as by their divine right (while accusing Saddam of whatever and killing him off), and today, the US is not involved in the exploitation of Iraqi oil, except perhaps illegally (Kurds? idk?), and in only 1-3 very small participations - Occidental, Exxon. The Wiki is not great but gives a rough list, an idea. Trump complains the Chinese reap the benefits (aka take-over) in Afgh, it is the case in Iraq as well.

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

Temporarily Sane | Aug 5, 2017 4:24:36 PM | 80
Max Forte's Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare: Practice and Propaganda is well worth reading.

An excerpt:

If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance.

We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies.

US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.

The full book can be downloaded here (for free) .

IMO, Forte offers some of the best political commentary available anywhere...his writings on Empire go straight to my required reading list.

Lea | Aug 5, 2017 4:48:18 PM | 83
"Kleptocracy now putting down roots in the U.S.A."

Not quite. That kleptocracy put down roots in the US during WW2. You only see it nowadays because, like every capitalistic system, it's committed to growth - hence more, and more and more wars.
But remember Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam... it's been like that for decades.
http://www.entelekheia.fr/why-america-needs-war/

nobody | Aug 5, 2017 10:43:16 PM | 88
Russia learnt a huge lesson from their experience in Afghanistan. There they retreated in the face of a violent Wahabist insurgency ...

Posted by: aniteleya | Aug 4, 2017 12:33:51 PM | 9

Linear thinking is problematic. But at least it involves "thinking". Give it a try, for God's sake, aniteleya.

Simplyamazed | Aug 6, 2017 4:41:28 AM | 90
Dear Debsisdead

It is much better to toss ideas around to see what works rather than arguing the toss, as you say. I would say that the second represents linearity whereas the first does not.

The conceit that there is a thing called linear thinking is a means of reducing the confusion of reality to a simpler set of ideas as a means of understanding. It is a description of reality, not the reality itself.

Einstein had to use linear logic to prove the consistency and predictability of his theories, and he was trained to be good at that. However, I believe his initial insights show nonlinearity - his insights about the relativity of time demonstrate a method of thinking and understanding that broke free of the linear constraints of current theories and practices. What we call genius generally goes beyond categorization and combines complex thought processes.

I was taught to visualise thought processes as convergent and divergent. Generally, convergent thinking starts with a proposition and works a link at a time along a chain of connections to find a unique, provable new proposition. Divergent thinking, by contrast starts with the same proposition, then radiates its analysis in many directions outward, looking for complex fields that have correlations and connections. Divergent thiking often is associated with creativity. I would say that Einstein was thinking divergently when he made the leap to relativity of time.

The issue I have with the analysis in this paper about linearity, is that it assumes a conclusion then argues that the route from the initial proposition (win the war in Afganistan) to the conclusion (not winning the war) shows too slavish devotion to linear thinking to account for the complexity of reality (that is, conflating the theory with reality). I believe that the initial assumption that the proposition is to win the war in a conventional sense is a failure to take account of the divergent thinking that the strategists actually display: (i) there are layered objectives, none dominant; (ii) there are multiple routes to various alternative objectives; (iii) it is not necessary to achieve all objectives; (iv) success is relative and can be adjusted as circumstances shift and change.

For instance, defeating the Taliban and taking full control of Afghanistan can be a worthwhile objective provided the result is not a quagmire. As a second and competing objective, merely denying dominance or control to a perceived enemy (Al Quaida, Russia, China) without being bogged down can be an equally satisfying success.

In the 1800's there was an active debate in London about the nature of Empire. Some favoured settlement and control of territory while others felt territorial control would lead to a quagmire and too much expense - the better objective was to control trade routes and key strategic points (Capetown, Aden, Hong Kong). The experience of the British Empire appears to inform U.S. Imperial thinking.

somebody | Aug 6, 2017 5:20:42 AM | 91
88

So 9/11 happened the exact moment the US were switching their support to the Northern Alliance, meaning the Iranian backed part of the Afghan wars?

So that after 9/11 the US hit two strategic enemies of Iran - Iraq and the Taliban - expecting gratefulness?

The problem is not linear thinking. The problem is the ivory tower.

90

No kind of creative thinking will help you once you have dug yourself into a hole.
There is no kind of thinking taking you to an unrealistic goal.

somebody | Aug 6, 2017 7:26:22 AM | 94
91 or maybe it is the inability to admit you lost it.

New York Times from 1998

The Russians find themselves in loose collaboration with Iran in countering the growing power of the Taliban. In fact, American officials and other experts say Iran is now supplying even more arms, fuel and other resources to the anti-Taliban rebels than is Russia.

Squared off against Russia and Iran in this post-cold-war confrontation are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are backing the Taliban.

...

Russia has decided to develop a broad, strategic relationship with Iran, partly because of their overlapping oil interests in Central Asia, American officials say.

Support for the Afghan rebels serves Iranian and Russian economic and political interests. The northern alliance acts as a buffer between the Taliban and the Afghan border with the former Soviet republics, while the continuation of civil war in the country prevents Western oil companies from building pipelines across Afghan territory.

Both Russia and Iran fear the potential spread of the radicalism of the Taliban. Moscow wants to insure that Islamic fundamentalism does not spill into the former Soviet republics to the north, while the ruling Shiite Muslims of Iran see the Sunni Muslims of the Taliban as bitter rivals. ''The Russians and the Iranians are very concerned by the possibility of victory by the Taliban,'' a State Department official said.

At the same time, Russia and Iran would like to influence how the oil and gas riches of the Caspian Sea region are channeled and exploited. In fact, American officials believe that Russia has decided that it must curb the influence of the United States and of American oil companies in the Caspian oil basin.

American officials also say they believe that Iran and Russia want to insure that many of the planned Caspian oil pipelines traverse Iranian or Russian territory. As a result, the Iranians, and to a lesser extent the Russians, have an incentive to block efforts to build pipelines across Afghanistan to the Indian subcontinent.

So that in the end, the US are supporting the same players in Afghanistan that Russia and Iran support to finally arrive - at huge cost to the taypayer - with this

Iran gains ground in Afghanistan as U.S. military presence wanes

somebody | Aug 6, 2017 7:30:33 AM | 96

plus 94 outcome

War in Afghanistan: Former President Hamid Karzai Claims There Is No Difference Between ISIS and America

Karzai worked closely with U.S. officials when he was president of Afghanistan. He took office in 2001, and remained in power until 2014, governing throughout the U.S.' invasion of Afghanistan. For years he welcomed American efforts to try and rid his country of the Taliban.

But his relationship with Washington became increasingly tense and he eventually accused the U.S. of sharing a common goal with the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan. In 2014, he refused to meet with then-President Barack Obama at a Bagram military base during a surprise visit with troops.

Now, Karzai seems to be lending his support to another country: Russia. During his VOA interview, he brushed away claims!made by the U.S. and rights groups!that Russia has been assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moscow, which supports including the militants in peace talks, says it has never armed the group, but it has communicated with them.

[Aug 10, 2017] If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance.

Notable quotes:
"... We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies. ..."
"... US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Temporarily Sane | Aug 5, 2017 4:24:36 PM | 80

Max Forte's Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare: Practice and Propaganda is well worth reading.

An excerpt:

If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance.

We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies.

US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.

The full book can be downloaded here (for free) .

IMO, Forte offers some of the best political commentary available anywhere...his writings on Empire go straight to my required reading list.

[Aug 10, 2017] US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity

Notable quotes:
"... "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net
Max Forte's Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare: Practice and Propaganda is well worth reading.

An excerpt:

If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance.

We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies.

US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line.

"Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.

The full book can be downloaded here (for free) .

IMO, Forte offers some of the best political commentary available anywhere...his writings on Empire go straight to my required reading list.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Aug 5, 2017 4:24:36 PM | 80

[Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

Highly recommended!
Highly recommended --
The full book can be downloaded here (for free) .
Notable quotes:
"... What is a force multiplier? ..."
Nov 08, 2015 | zeroanthropology.net

If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance. We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies. US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.

Yet, in the end, we are still left with a basic question: What is a force multiplier? There are even more answers to this question than there are persons answering it. Beyond the most basic definition in physics, we see a proliferation of examples of force multipliers, reflecting a weak pseudo-science that reifies actual policies, offering mixed results in practice. Given the scientistic and positivist approach that achieved hegemony during the Cold War in US universities and the military, the conceptualization of force multipliers reveals familiar problems arising from the naturalization of social phenomena, of "man" as "molecule" of society. As an impoverished form of political science, one that is formulaic, mechanical, utilitarian, and ideologically-driven, the force multiplier idea nonetheless poses difficult anthropological questions about the agency of others.

My hope was that military writers did not choose to write "force multipliers" because candidly calling them "quislings," "shills," "dupes," "pawns" or "suckers" would have been too "politically incorrect," or would have validated older, Cold War-era accusations of the US supporting "stooges," "lackeys," "cronies," "henchmen," "running dogs," or "lap dogs". In other words, my hope was that this was not yet another imperial euphemism. Regardless of the intentions behind the terminology, whether conscious or not, the basic idea of using humans as a form of drone , one that is less expensive yet more precise and in less need of constant guidance, seems to be the persisting feature of the force multiplier concept.

If the concept is not a mere euphemism, then there is still an absence of sound theorization of force multipliers on the part of the Pentagon, and by that I mean that while an inchoate lexical infrastructure exists consisting of nested synonyms derived from the natural sciences, there is little more than crude utilitarianism and functionalism to hold the terms together. Some may wish to retort, "then that is the theory" by noting the presence of functionalist assumptions and premises derived from rational-choice theories. However, the presence of theory should also involve the process of theorization, which entails questioning, revising, and exposing one's assumptions to a dialogue with other theories and with facts that appear to challenge the validity of the theory.

There may be a lot of real-world destruction by the US military and intelligence apparatus, but there is no winning as such!the absence of theorization is killing the imperial political and security structures, but their exposure to critical theories will only hasten their defeat. No wonder then that so many right-wing "pro-military" columnists in the US routinely scoff at and dismiss "post-colonialism"!theirs is a hegemony in trouble, turned narcissistic: unable to find their mirror image in many sectors of the social sciences and humanities, they resort to angry triumphalism and cyclical repetition of the same failed "solutions," repeated over and over again. On the other hand, they can find their mirror-image in academia, and particularly anthropology, in other ways: many US anthropologists' convoluted (meta)theoretical fumblings, obfuscated by pretentious language whose deliberate lack of clarity masks deep confusion and bewilderment, stands out particularly in the cases of topics which are "new," such as democracy or globalization. In this sense, both the US military and US anthropology in some quarters share in common a proliferation of theoretical-sounding rhetoric and a lack of scientific theory. Not coincidentally, both also share an apparent aversion to even saying the word "imperialism". One might detect a certain decadence in imperial intellectual life, of which the force multiplier theoretical pretense is but one small example.

Clearly there are numerous examples of agents serving as "force multipliers," and almost as clear is the absence of theorization, let alone reason for imperial elites to feel confident about success when the political, economic, and cultural projects they represent are domestically bankrupt and alienating. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq, and "winning hearts and minds," certainly did happen in some places and to some extent, which gives partial weight to the "force multiplier" idea at the core of these processes. However, on the whole, counterinsurgency programs have been defeated in Afghanistan just as in Vietnam before.

[Aug 09, 2017] Donald Trump, Empire, and Globalization A Reassessment

Notable quotes:
"... " Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism ..."
"... Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance. ..."
"... My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern. There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration. 1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day. That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below. ..."
"... A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. ..."
"... As many others have argued, anthropologist Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged (if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286). ..."
"... Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism ..."
"... That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump. ..."
"... With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender our country or its people to the false song of globalism ". ..."
"... One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles that attracted significant support. ..."
"... state-subsidized ..."
"... shut up and keep working ..."
"... Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs, as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to his campaign. ..."
"... Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White House, with his reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently exalted that what " stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational elite (globalists) within the administration. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net

" Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism .

Trump might not be conscious of the implication of his statement (nor would he be the only one sleepwalking toward regime change ), but that makes the explanation all the more powerful. In the absence of both conviction that matches his campaign platform, and a well developed program for an alternative US foreign policy that transforms the international "order" which the US underpins -- a very tall order --

Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance. The equipment to fulfill that vision is already in place and ready to produce instant results that can then be cast as "winning," "standing strong," or as Fox News' Sean Hannity likes to inexplicably exclaim, "America is back" (from what?). So why did Donald Trump, the so-called outsider, default to the established course in US politics?

One question is whether Trump drifted into this position out of disorder, confusion, lack of conviction, and a government undermined by factions. Another is whether he was "placed" in this position (by others and/or himself), in what would then effectively amount to the corporate oligarchy's biggest ever electoral heist. Others will instead point to Trump craving respect and adulation, and thus playing to the media to improve his image. Some have made what I think are misleading and self-serving arguments: that Trump's changes reflect an encounter with "reality," or represent "learning on the job". The assumption here is that reality is somehow hard-coded with neoliberal principles. If learning on the job meant learning to continue the imperial presidency, then they might have a point, even if it's not the one they wanted to make.

Other questions to ask include (in no particular order of importance):

  • In which ways does nationalist globalism relate to imperialism?
  • How does Trump's newfound globalism connect to issues of conflict of interest and nepotism?
  • What role does class play in charting Trump's actual domestic and foreign policy directions?
  • Are the ostensible changes traceable to Trump's preexisting and underlying ambitions and interests, or were the changes forced on him by circumstance?
  • Is this a story about the workings of the "deep state"?
  • Is Trump's presidency good news, after all, for extending the life of global liberal capitalism?
  • How might Trump's presidency end up strengthening the hands of anti-imperialists?

This article (long as it is, it has been significantly abridged), begins by examining "nationalist globalism". I then focus on changes to Trump's stated positions seen from a domestic angle, and in particular on his stances regarding Obama and the Clintons, his declared interest in turning the Republican party into a "workers' party" while in fact returning it to the hold of Wall Street, and thus I look at the ties between his cabinet, Goldman Sachs, and Wall Street broadly -- this is also where we discuss the nature of the "oligarchic corporate imperial state". After that, we see how this mutated policy extends internationally, from Cuba to Russia, Syria, North Korea, NAFTA, NATO, and WikiLeaks. I end the essay by discussing whether we can still proclaim the "end of liberalism" (short answer: yes), and consider how Trump's presidency could aid the cause of anti-imperialism.

I considered some of the prospects of a Trump presidency with respect to US imperialism in an equally lengthy article last October. In " Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment " I got some things right, and some things wrong, as is true of everyone else. I asked: "how can Donald Trump make the decline in US global power 'beautiful,' and how can he turn withdrawal into 'greatness'?". This question is now null and void. I also wrote that, "on foreign policy, globalization, and military intervention, Donald Trump is a transitional figure" -- that might hold some validity, but not in any straightforward sense: he may be inadvertently setting the conditions for a truly transitional figure yet to come (but that could be true of any representative of the power elite).

I was mistaken however in suggesting that, "Trump would be leading the equivalent of a perestroika for US empire". I also argued that what Trump was offering was, "not so much radical change as an intermediate passage, and a way of managing imperial decline" -- from where we now stand, the last thing that seems to be on Trump's mind is anything remotely to do with "managing decline". Where the analysis was on slightly less thin ice was when I said that Trump appeared to be, "not much of one thing, not much of another, and somewhere in between . neither an anti-imperialist nor pro-imperialist, nor even an absolute non-imperialist" -- but that is perhaps because, inside ambiguity, one can hide anything. I also pointed out that,

"Nowhere, as far as I have seen, does Donald Trump ever proclaim himself an 'anti-imperialist'. Apart from using the word 'Empire' for one of his fragrances, there is little evidence of the word in his writings and speeches. Likewise, he never identifies himself as 'pro-imperialist' either. Donald Trump certainly does advocate for American power, and 'American strength,' and even calls himself a militarist on some occasions -- but with more caveats than his political adversaries".

The above still largely holds, I think. It is also still truer than ever that "there are multiple competing editions of Donald Trump" -- and one can find support for almost any argument about Trump's stated intentions, by using Trump's own past words. Where I did point out that Trump had taken decisively pro-imperialist positions in the past (regardless of his choice of words) was on Iraq and its oil, on Libya, and on Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela.

Matters have now become considerably simplified. We no longer need to debate where Trump stands and what he might do once he became president. Now we know what , even if we still debate why . However, understanding why might tell us something about what comes next.

My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern. There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration. 1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day. That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below.

What is Nationalist Globalism?

A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. Nationalism and globalization are not striking contradictions, when referring to the ideology of an imperial state that maximizes its power over globalization processes in order to gain at the expense of other states. Besides the observation that what we know of as globalization was largely the product of state action (legislation, economic incentives, building the infrastructures of global commerce and communications, the creation of multilateral organizations, and so on), one state in particular can claim a leading role in globalization. Barack Obama could thus declare in 2010, "no nation should be better positioned to lead in an era of globalization than America -- the Nation that helped bring globalization about" (quoted in Forte, 2015, p. 10). As many others have argued, anthropologist Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged (if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286).

... ... ...

Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism -- or imperialism -- one that is all too familiar and has been described by anthropologist Neil Smith (2005) as "Americanism". We will need to keep analyzing Trump's policies as the months and years pass, but right now we have an outline of the kinds of imperialism that Trump upholds. One is an economic imperialism that goes back to the first premises of the US "new empire" of the late 1800s: belligerently opening up foreign markets in order to absorb US overproduction. So far, Trump is using political and economic means to achieve that goal -- as in trying to intimidate Canada into opening up its dairy market to an even greater number of US imports, while punishing it for exporting cheap softwood lumber to the US. However, he is apparently willing to trade economic goals for military ones, as in the case of dropping any antagonism toward China about trade issues, in return for China's promise to somehow alter North Korea's foreign policy, just as the US escalates military maneuvers with a possible military strike actively being considered. (Confusingly, he reverses this pattern with South Korea, where military measures were then clouded by talk of revising a trade agreement and extracting payment for US missile defense.)

Added to the corporate capitalist imperialism, and military imperialism , Trump is also toying with liberal-humanitarian imperialism in the case of Syria. However -- and this is very important -- what he lacks here is a "soft power" platform of any size or credibility. The ability of Trump to preside over an effective program of cultural imperialism is diminished to the point of zero, and is likely far less than even zero. That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump.

With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender our country or its people to the false song of globalism ". A year later he effectively declared himself an adherent to nationalism, plus something false. His statement also marks the new release of yet another edition of Trump, such that we can set up extensive debates between various versions of Trump as published in past books, speeches, and interviews. Just on the question of Syria alone, one could produce a loud debate between anti-interventionist Trump of years past and pro-interventionist Trump of today. Explaining this apparent bifurcation, and attempting to read it into his past statements on US regime change, is a complicated matter, and those who make light of it with statements of having known with certainty that what we have today would be the inevitable result, are being disingenuous. 2

The only promise made by Trump that still rings true is that of his "unpredictability". Being unpredictable and flexible might be virtues in some situations, but when it comes to charting a course, standing by a campaign platform, and committing oneself to a contract with voters, such qualities are synonymous with being capricious, unreliable, unsteady, opportunistic, and even treacherous. That would also hold true in business, and especially when living up to commitments one makes in deals. That Trump tries to lighten the nature of his apparent deficit of principles and conviction -- that he essentially admits he will not permit himself to be fooled by his own words -- only aggravates the problem. A man with such little political accountability to himself, can hardly be expected to be accountable to everyone else. For his independent-minded supporters, this will not look like a problem of having a two-sided coin; rather, it's a problem of having no coin at all if there is no value.

Renewing the Corporate Oligarchic State after November 8, 2016

Among those few who predicted Trump's victory , few or none predicted that Trump would then move on to defeating Trump. Some partisans have come up with slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but no one to my knowledge has ever exclaimed, "Trump Trumps Trump" -- thankfully. A recent list of the monumental ruin to which standard, corporate-fueled and media-driven machine politics fell thanks to the Trump campaign, provides only an incomplete story of 2016. Now we have to rewrite even the story of 2016. While a candidate could win a presidential campaign, as an "outsider," even as he was reviled by his own party elite, demonized by the mass media, shunned by the mass of corporate donors, and so forth, it also means that the status quo can win on the cheap. The establishment won, and all without the usual investments, and not so much as a single compliment to the winning candidate who would uphold their order -- at little or no cost to them. The next US political candidate to campaign on being an "outsider" will face a greater challenge in being taken seriously; by the same token, the dominant elites may disarm themselves, thinking the next outsider will be easy to co-opt or browbeat into submission.

One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles that attracted significant support. For example, where trade is concerned, Trump has consistently opposed free trade deals for nearly three decades. He would say that he believed in free trade, but only if it was fair, and he did not believe any of the existing free trade deals were fair. Yet here too he would alter course -- what was unfair was something he could generally tolerate for now. That was not to be predicted, because there was no evidentiary basis for predicting it.

... ... ...

The Workers' Party (brought to you by Carl's Jr.)

Turning to the working class, and Trump's talk of transforming the Republican party into " the party of the American worker " -- a claim he made both before and after the election -- here two significant acts stand out, and they deserve a longer essay in their own right. Trump's first choice for Secretary of Labor was none other than Andrew Puzder , who at the time was the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Puzder was notoriously anti-union, and his opposition to raising the minimum wage, his cheating CKE employees of their wages, support for automation, and employment of an undocumented domestic servant while not paying taxes for her services, hardly represented the qualities of a leader of some new workers' movement. This is the person Trump chose to supposedly enforce labour regulations. Later, after Puzder withdrew himself from the nomination, Trump replaced him with Alex Acosta , dean of the Florida International Law School, who also served on the National Labor Relations Board and received the support of AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka. This belated correction -- imposed by circumstances beyond Trump's control -- was among the reasons some still claim that Trump should be taken seriously on wanting to make the GOP into the workers' party. I would prefer to remind the reader about Trump's actual priorities, and consider the person he chose as his number one preference.

That there is no accident in Trump's choices has a lot to do with his class prejudices and his class ambitions. His choice of cabinet members, with a preference for billionaires (or generals), shows who he tends to trust and respect. Some historians have said that Trump's cabinet is the richest in US history , with a combined worth estimated as ranging from $11 billion to $14 billion . One can attempt to remodel Trump as a "blue collar billionaire," but it seems futile. He would tell his supporters on the campaign trail that "we need the rich" (a statement which can be ambiguous in its implications) and "no poor man ever gave you a job" (which is unambiguous). The way his decision-making apparatus has been structured also reveals Trump's interests: billionaires in actual positions of power in his cabinet, but only consultations with union officials .

When it comes to trade unions, Trump's first weeks since the election reinforce this tendency toward a top-down, patronizing approach. On the one hand, he in fact won the support of many key unions , primarily private-sector unions in construction and trades, and secondarily among autoworkers, machinists, and steelworkers. On the other hand, one of Trump's earliest skirmishes since he was elected was with Chuck Jones , president of the United Steelworkers local 1999, over Trump's inflated claims about saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana that was to shut down as the company relocated to Mexico. That planned move and the layoffs it entailed played an important part in the 2016 election, underscoring both Trump's and Sanders' arguments against NAFTA. It seems that Trump, at most, scored half of a victory in persuading Carrier to retain some jobs in Indiana, while still moving a substantial portion to Mexico, only now with the blessing of millions of dollars in tax credits. The irony is that Carrier is now performing a state-subsidized transfer of jobs to Mexico. Trump claimed Carrier would keep 1,100 jobs in place -- but Jones argued that the number included 350 jobs that were never scheduled to leave (yet 550 other union members would still lose their jobs), adding that Trump completely ignored the fact that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, still planned to completely shut down and transfer 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Indiana, to Monterrey, Mexico. Some of Jones' statements to the press were very sharp. In response, Trump proceeded to lambast Jones in Twitter, with a couple of apparently vindictive and inflamed smears .

First, Trump appears to blame workers themselves for the loss of their own jobs, as if they were the owners of capital, or had a direct role in corporate decision-making, or were to blame for NAFTA's existence. It's the kind of spontaneous anti-worker outburst that demonstrates where Trump's allegiance ultimately rests. The second message repeats the claim that workers are the ones responsible for keeping their jobs in place, thus more victim blaming, while adding a chilling new twist: shut up and keep working , plus unions should have less money (and thus less power). Jones is likely right in thinking that if Trump had blamed the loss of the jobs on the union and its workers during the campaign, he would have lost some votes. Jones is likely also correct when he stated about Trump that, "I'm not naive enough to think he's going to be a friend to the working class people". 3

None of this can take away the fact that Trump's victory was thanks primarily to working-class voters, especially women and members of ethnic minorities among them. Though the numbers are not definitive, the best knowledge we have is that 54.4% of Trump's voters were women and minorities , and 66% of whites without a college degree, who are typically working class, also supported Trump.

The Wall Street Party (brought to you by Goldman Sachs)

As widely recognized by many others, one of the most glaring shifts in Trump's positioning concerns Goldman Sachs. In his last, and very memorable television advertisement ending his electoral campaign, Trump took direct aim at Goldman Sachs (featuring its president and corporate logo), the New York Stock Exchange, and George Soros, all as representatives of a corrupt global power structure that has robbed millions of Americans of their livelihoods. After the election, Trump nominated at least five former Goldman Sachs executives to high-level positions in his cabinet -- though not necessarily because of their varied associations with Goldman Sachs. Steve Bannon , Trump's Chief Strategist, is a millionaire and was a former vice president of Goldman Sachs until he left in 1990, and is perhaps the one pick that was not aligned with Goldman Sachs' support for globalization. Steven Mnuchin , a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs, and a hedge fund manager, was selected by Trump to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Gary Cohn , former president of Goldman Sachs, was chosen by Trump to head the National Economic Council. Dina Habib Powell , President Trump's senior counselor for economic initiatives, was recently appointed as a deputy national security adviser for strategy -- Powell works closely with Jared Kushner, and was recently the president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation. Jay Clayton , who did not work at Goldman Sachs, was a partner at the Manhattan law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, 4 which represents Goldman Sachs, and his wife Gretchen works for Goldman Sachs. Others have also reported that Trump's reversals are due to the sway of the "Wall Street wing" of the White House.

As another writer noted, " not since the Eisenhower administration have so many business executives landed top government jobs , making Trump's Cabinet the wealthiest in American history". (Also, as mentioned in Note #1 below, this chart shows some of the key ties that dominated the Eisenhower administration .) The list of corporate executives in Trump's cabinet exceeds those mentioned above. Rex Tillerson, now Secretary of State, was the CEO of Exxon. Ross Wilbur, a billionaire investor, is the Commerce Secretary. Of course, we must also include the presence of the Trump corporation itself at the apex of the administration. As some observed, Trump's choices send "the most powerful signal yet that Mr. Trump plans to emphasize policies friendly to Wall Street, like tax cuts and a relaxation of regulation .that approach has been cheered by investors ". For weeks on end the stock market boomed, reaching new records, as if celebrating a major victory. The fact that stock markets reacted so positively, and so quickly, to Trump assuming the presidency almost suggests something akin to a coup, with some having had the benefit of advance, inside knowledge. These features bring to mind Kapferer's discussion of the " corporate oligarchic imperial state ":

"Current configurations of global, imperial and state power relate to formations of oligarchic control. A major feature of this is the command of political organizations and institutions by close-knit social groups (families or familial dynasties, groups of kin, closed associations or tightly controlled interlinked networks of persons) for the purpose of the relatively exclusive control of economic resources and their distribution". (Kapferer, 2005, p. 285)

Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs, as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to his campaign. I see many taking matters for granted, by resorting to easy assertions that "they are all the one percent," or "they are all oligarchs". That is broadly accurate, but also facile, because such commentary focuses (knowingly or not) on capital, in broad terms, and not on the capitalist class which is divided into competing factions. The elite political class of experts, managers, technocrats and legislators, certainly remains more united than ever against Trump since his victory -- but the capitalist class is seeing some remarkable reconciliation thanks to Trump (at least for now). So why did Trump choose to perform this service?

One hypothesis we should consider is that Trump, ever so concerned about his brand, preoccupied with the futures of his children and grandchildren, and the future of his family's corporate empire -- matters that are first and foremost for Trump -- wants to make a transition away from a position as a national capitalist in order to enter the transnational capitalist class, where the real global power lies. 5 It was a gamble, but we can surmise that Trump (consciously or not) sees the presidency of the most powerful state of the world -- power that was conceivably (and now actually) within his reach -- as being also the most powerful way to boost the fortunes of the Trump brand. (Remember, this is a man who took the time to hold a press conference during the campaign just to defend Trump-branded products in what resembled an infomercial , and as president took to Twitter to shame chain stores for blocking sales of Ivanka Trump's branded product lines.)

With the inevitable global networking that a presidency affords, conducted within the surroundings of the Trump resort at Mar-a-Lago , Trump seems to be looking at the global expansion of his corporate interests. He had already started to dip his toe in the pool of transnational capitalism by building hotels in a dozen different countries (Canada, the UK, the UAE, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina). Arguably the Miss Universe pageant also fits within the circuit of transnational capitalism. The neo-regal style of Trump's lifestyle and his hotels, aided like a royal patriarch by the ambassadorial service of his daughter Ivanka, may all be part of an expansionist, globalist sales pitch of the Trump empire and the family that leads it.

Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White House, with his reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently exalted that what " stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational elite (globalists) within the administration.

Trump's pleasure at the remarkable absence of legal constraints on the presidency regarding nepotism and conflict of interest, does not mean that conflict of interest and nepotism do not mark his presidency, according to the commonly understood meanings of these terms. Germany's foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, thus really could not be countered when he recently exclaimed, "it always bothers me when members of a family, who have never been elected, show up suddenly as official state representatives and are treated almost as if they were members of a royal family ". Trump will now essentially rent out the US military in order to extract tribute to advance his quasi-monarchic ambitions.

[Aug 09, 2017] US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity

Aug 09, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net
Max Forte's Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare: Practice and Propaganda is well worth reading.

An excerpt:

If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance.

We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies.

US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line.

"Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.

The full book can be downloaded here (for free) .

IMO, Forte offers some of the best political commentary available anywhere...his writings on Empire go straight to my required reading list.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Aug 5, 2017 4:24:36 PM | 80

[Aug 09, 2017] The current CIA-led regime change operation in Venezuela seems to be following the same script as used in Ukraine and Syria with armed oppostion attacks on state forces, ignored by the western media who focus solely on presenting what appears to be unprovoked attacks against hapless protestors. If the CIA has their way, the next stage should be mysterious snipers shooting both sides.

Notable quotes:
"... The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions, assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anonymous | Aug 4, 2017 6:49:21 PM | 35

The term 'linear thinking' might better be described as 'mechanistic thinking' or the 'playbook approach'.

The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions, assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. For example, the Gulenist-faction shootdown of the Su-24 led to Russia using that as an excuse to bring in heavy air-defense for for its forces. The bombing of the airliner in Egypt was used by Russia to invoke the UN article of self defense against Daesh/ISIS, which no other actor has done.

The US bombing of SAA ground forces led to Russia inserting its own ground forces tempering further air attacks. The Trump cruise missile strike against the SAA base holding Russian personnel led to a mysterious S-300 launch from Tartus into the eastern Med. Subsequently US aircraft carrying out attacks in SYria/Iraq appear to be flying from carriers in the Persian Gulf.

The creation of reconciliation zones has led to the presence of Russian forces close to the Golan which seems to have dampened the IDF's enthusiasm for bombing Hezbollah which in turn helped them clear out ISIS/whatever from the Syria/Lebanon border.

The current CIA-led regime change operation in Venezuela seems to be following the same script as used in Ukraine and Syria with armed oppostion attacks on state forces, ignored by the western media who focus solely on presenting what appears to be unprovoked attacks against hapless 'protestors'. If the CIA has their way, the next stage should be mysterious snipers shooting both sides.

[Aug 09, 2017] Could the September 11 masterminds have imagined todays world by Rich Higgins

This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of the coup against Trump. The hypothesis that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American Imperialism and neoliberal globalization it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic banners is mostly immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into barbarity and head chopping should not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make the USSR occupation of Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA political laboratories as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown by the forces of neoliberalism in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is hall mark of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a threat, or a tool for the US led global neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of Hillary Clinton email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist it. This is the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Sep 09, 2016 | www.washingtontimes.com Washington Times

Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden, the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.

Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:

The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.

Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would both have Constitutions placing those Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the MB.

Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.

Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION courtesy of the U.S. government while Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in Indonesia and in South America.

Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable Islamic immigrants who reside in "no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare benefits paid for by the citizens of those counties.

The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states.

U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism is considered racism.

National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.

  • If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would be the outcome in just 15 short years, do you think they would believe you? Do you think that they would think that their side is winning?
  • When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side, but they find forty, what do they do?
  • Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
  • Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably wouldn't be a smart move to hang around for the answer. Not smart at all.

Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical pause and that is basically what Donald Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on immigration.

After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened. Was their information wrong? Did they go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need to be considered.

A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment.

At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a tactical pause and a strategic reassessment. This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.

Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified programs for Special Operations Command. He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International Security Affairs.

[Aug 09, 2017] Trump is Guilty, of Something by Andrew Levine

Aug 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Donald Trump is guilty of something, guilty as sin. Nobody outside his innermost circle knows yet what he is guilty of, and all the evidence is circumstantial. But guilty he surely is.

Is it that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton? That is the story line that corporate media take for gospel truth. It is not out of the question that some Russians, some of whom had some connection with the Russian government, hacked into something. Even if they did, however, the Russian meddling story is ridiculously overblown – for reasons that are politically self-serving and irresponsibly, if not criminally, dangerous.

If catastrophic outcomes can somehow be avoided, that story will eventually go the way of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Before that happens, however, count on Vladimir Putin's affront to the "integrity" of American democracy being used to justify devastating, potentially catastrophic, diplomatic and military adventures -- in much the way that Saddam Hussein's WMDs once were.

By the time the dust settles, it will likely become clear that either there never was any reason to accept the party line on Russian meddling or that, even if there was something to it, there was never any reason to get all worked up about it.

This is not to say that "Russiagate" investigations should be opposed; quite to the contrary, there is every reason to support them fully.

If nothing else, investigations like Robert Mueller's and the ones underway in the House and Senate help keep Trump and the people he has brought into his administration from executing their nefarious agendas. Better yet, they are likely, before long, to bring Trump himself down – in ways that would make it harder for Trump's appointees and, when the times comes, for Mike Pence to turn many of the progressive gains of the past hundred or so years around.

But the fact remains: the election meddling furor is, at best, a red herring – about which all one can honestly say, for now, is: Who knows? Who cares?

Who knows – because the only reason to think that there was Russian meddling is that "the intelligence community" says there was. But, as everybody knows or ought to know, they are inveterate liars. Lying is in their genes and in their job descriptions.

Moreover, if history is a guide, they are just as likely to be wrong as to be right, even when they aren't deliberately telling lies.

Everybody also knows that the CIA in particular is not above politicizing intelligence when it serves some institutional purpose.

Who knows too – because liberal and not-so-liberal media have been pressing the case for Russian election meddling so vigorously for such a long time that the idea has become almost second nature to all but the most circumspect consumers of news. In cases like this, the wisest course of action usually is to become more, not less, skeptical.

It is hard to say which media outlet is the most at fault; the competition is so intense. The Washington Post and The New York Times are serious contenders, though it must be said, in fairness, that the Trump menace seems to have reignited a taste for real investigative reporting – about Trump -- in both of them. For that, one could forgive a great deal.

But they are still, on the whole, a servile lot. My vote for the worst of them all is MSNBC, with Joy Reid leading the way and Rachel (take twenty minutes to make a twenty second point) Maddow close behind.

A character in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" advised believing only half of what one sees and nothing that one hears. Inasmuch as most of what one sees and hears about Russian meddling in the 2016 election are breathless repetitions of claims originating in the intelligence services, this is good advice in the case at hand.

The problem is not "fake news," news reports that are deliberately deceptive. Trump blathers on endlessly about that – in his usual, self-serving, bullying way – using the term so loosely as to void it of meaning. On this as on so much else, what comes out of Trump's mouth and what one reads in his tweets is sheer nonsense.

It is true, of course, that, under his aegis and inspiration, there has been an up-tick in deliberately false news stories, mainly in "alt-right" media outlets. But there is little, if any, genuinely fake (deliberately false) news in mainstream media. This side of Fox News, and sometimes even there, most journalists do try to maintain journalistic standards. They are not pathological liars, little Donald Trumps.

What they are, wittingly or not, are propagandists – in the sense discussed long ago by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in Manufacturing Consent (reprint edition, Pantheon, 2002). Ď

Through the workings of the several mechanisms described in that book, they fashion and reinforce narratives, story lines, that accord with the interests of the owners of the corporations they work for and, when the need arises, with the interests of the entirety of what C. Wright Mills called the "power structure." At the same time, they derogate and marginalize counter-narratives that have, or could have, effects detrimental to the interests of the people and institutions they serve.

Their express intention, of course, is to report the news, not to maintain the status quo; they don't set out to deceive. More often than not, they believe the stories they tell. Why would they not? The system they are part of incentivizes compliance with the power structure's interests; and, when tensions arise, it is generally easier to go along than to be a stickler for plausibility.

***

For getting mainstream media to sign on to the election meddling narrative, it would be difficult to underestimate the importance of the role played by a key component of the power structure in the United States today, the Democratic Party.

That is how desperate Democrats are to make sure that Clinton's stunning, self-inflicted defeat last November will not be Clintonism's (neoliberalism's, liberal imperialism's) last hurrah. To that end, they have been willing, even eager, to revive Cold War demons that had lain dormant for decades -- bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.

Ostensibly the less noxious of the two neoliberal parties that dominate our politics, Democrats today have sunk so low that were Republicans still no worse than they were, say, when they fell into line behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, or even before Obama's 2008 electoral victory made many rank-and-file Republicans bat shit crazy, it would now be an open question which party actually is the greater evil of the two.

The consensus view in mainstream media lately, in the Democratic Party, and increasingly in the Republican Party as well, is that Trump is doing grave harm to the office of the Presidency and to many of the institutions, both domestic and international, through which the United States has dominated the world since 1945.

This is certainly the case. But, contrary to what is assumed throughout the power structure, it is at least debatable whether Trump's effect on these institutions – and the negative effect his presidency is having on the GOP itself – is, on balance, a good or bad thing.

Instead of rallying around the Democratic Party, a genuine Left would itself be taking aim at the bastions of empire and class rule that Trump is mindlessly but inexorably undoing. Trump's way is nihilistic and thuggish; and the only alternatives he or his cabinet secretaries and agency heads have in mind are odious even by Republican standards.

This is why the Trump presidency is, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster – no matter how much damage Trump does to the old world order or to some of the more disabling institutional arrangements afflicting the political scene.

Democrats can be and, for the most part, actually are, monumentally awful, but Republicans who support Trump are worse. This would not be so plainly the case, if the comparison was with pre-9/11 Republicans or even with the Republican Party before the 2008 election.

After all, if the appropriate metric is damage to world peace, geopolitical stability, and the wellbeing of humankind, Bush is still the worst President ever. Of course, if Trump mentally decomposes more than he already has, or if he starts acting out in exceptionally lethal ways, he could surpass even the standard Bush has set. For now, though, six months into the Trump era, W remains Number One How revealing, therefore, that the very media that, to their credit, have nothing good to say about the billionaire buffoon, are now welcoming Bush, and his underlings, back into the fold.

In polite society nowadays, Obamaphiles, including Obama himself and his First Lady, even seem to regard Bush the Younger as one of the good guys; and miscreants from his administration are featured in all the leading media outlets. How pathetic is that!

To his credit, however, Bush, unlike Trump, was not blatantly racist or nativist in his public pronouncements; and notwithstanding the fact that he and Cheney waged war on the Muslim world, he wasn't overtly Islamophobic either. The party he led generally followed suit.

However, once he was gone, Tea Partiers and Tea Party fellow travelers didn't have anything holding them back. With Obama at the helm of the empire, it didn't take long for them to make the Party over in their image.

For appearance sake, the Republican Party became the Party of No, but what they really were was the anti-Obama-for-all-the wrong-reasons Party. Republicans had no principled reason to turn Obama into Public Enemy Number One; his political views, which he did little to advance in any case, were more or less in line with those of pre-2001, or even pre-2008, Republicans.

Obama's rival in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, was essentially a pre-2008 Republican; politically, he and Obama were cut from the same cloth. Tea Partiers didn't like that one bit, but even the most "deplorable" of them never hated Romney the way they hated Obama. What set their hatred off was the color of Obama's skin.

How else to account for eight years of "repeal and replace Obamacare" sloganeering? In substance and genealogy (its origins in the Heritage Foundation, the implementation of something very like it in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney) Obamacare is essentially a Republican program. Had it not come with Obama's name attached, doctrinaire free-market theologians of the Rand Paul or Ted Cruz variety would still not like it, but neither would they or any of their co-thinkers get especially worked up on its account.

Nevertheless, it was opposition to Obamacare, more than anything else, that kept the GOP's several factions together during the Obama years. How ironic that all those "repeal and replace" Republicans are now floundering because when they finally got their chance to do what they said they wanted to do, they were unable to do anything at all. It is tempting to say that they outsmarted themselves, but the word "smart" grates when applied to them.

Democrats are generally nicer than Republicans, and many times more civilized. Were their self-exonerating anti-Russian, anti-Putin campaigning not so dangerous, they would plainly be the good guys still, comparatively speaking.

Even with their hysterical Russophobia, they probably still are. But being comparatively less awful than the GOP is no reason to buy into the election meddling story that Democrats are so assiduously promoting.

It is possible, of course, that despite all the reasons to be skeptical of their narrative, there is some truth in what they say. Even if there is, however, why make such a big deal or it? Who cares?

Evidently, pundits with venting privileges on ostensibly liberal cable networks do and Democratic Party sore losers, but their concerns are misdirected. No one, not even the worst of the worst on MSNBC, claims that those dastardly Russian meddlers affected the outcome of the election in any significant way. Russians didn't defeat Hillary Clinton; she defeated herself.

It is not for want of trying that no one has been able to make a plausible case for the claim that, but for Russian meddling, Clinton would have beaten Trump. But, alas, no one has been able to maintain that Russians had anything to do with collecting or counting votes, or that they interfered with the workings of the electoral process in any other way.

The idea instead is that they depressed Democratic turnout by diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton. They did this, supposedly, by providing evidence of the Democratic National Committee's efforts to rig the election for Hillary and against Bernie Sanders, and by demeaning Clinton in ways that Democrats and their friends in the mainstream press don't even bother to try to spell out.

If only the Democrats and their media flacks would evince half as much self-righteous indignation over past and on-going Republican efforts at voter suppression! There is no doubt that they were real and that their consequences were significant. Neither is the case with alleged Russian voter suppression efforts last year.

Moreover, even if the Russians did do all that our propagandists claimed they did, they did nothing worse than what countless homegrown political operatives do when they sell candidates to voters in more or less the way that commercial advertisers sell the wares they peddle to targeted audiences.

The difference is morally significant. If the Russians actually did suppress voter turnout in 2016, it was through one or another form of persuasion. Republicans suppress votes by making it difficult, or impossible, for likely Democratic voters -- African Americans and other "persons of color" mainly, but also students, and many elderly citizens -- to exercise their right to vote.

***

The consensus view notwithstanding, the Russian election meddling narrative is short on compelling evidence, and is grounded in a patently defective rationale. Even so, it could still have merit.

But even if there was meddling as charged, nothing much came of it. This has always been obvious, and it too is significant.

Sanders supporters didn't need Russians to tell them that the Democratic Party wanted Bernie to lose and Hillary to win. Everyone paying attention knew that already. Clinton's shortcomings were also evident for all to see.

Therefore, if the story line being pushed by our "manufacturers of consent" is on track, it would only show that those Russians are not nearly as clever as the propagandists vilifying them would like people to think. By documenting the obvious, what they did made about as much sense as throwing buckets of water into the ocean.

Why then is Trump putting the extent of his ineptitude on display by acting as if he is about to block the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling? Trump may not be the magisterial dealmaker his remaining fans believe him to be, but he is surely not as self-destructively stupid as his actions suggest.

The answer must be that he really does have something to hide; something more damaging than anything the mainstream media narrative suggests.

Trump doesn't know much, but he surely does know that Congressional investigations and Justice Department investigations involving special prosecutors take on lives of their own, even when, in the first instance, they are much ado about nothing. Watergate was only "a third-rate burglary," after all.

He is also shrewd enough to realize that his business machinations give Congress and the Justice Department plenty to investigate. There is sleaze galore out there, waiting to be uncovered.

Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead, if Trump is still around – or even if he returns to the gilded monstrosity on Fifth Avenue that he had built to glorify himself, leaving arch-reactionary Mike Pence in charge -- we will have loads of well-corroborated reports of shady (artful?) deals with Russian oligarchs and, insofar as there is a difference, Russian mobsters, making the news interesting again.

This is sheer speculation, of course; and the evidence, what there is of it so far, is circumstantial. Much of it consists of idiotic tweets that suggest nothing more damning than an acute consciousness of guilt. Ě

Nevertheless, I would bet the ranch, if I had one to bet, that honest and determined investigators with subpoena power scratching beneath the surface, will find incontrovertible proof of legal, moral, or political infractions so egregious that even the fools who still refuse to admit that Trump conned them into thinking that, as President, he would somehow make their lives better, will find it impossible to keep on standing by their man.

Trump is guilty, a hundred times over; and it is plain as day too that whatever it turns out to be that he is guilty of, that his over-arching cupidity and vanity made him do it.

Finding out what he is guilty of should be at the top of every competent authority's to do list. It should also become a consuming passion of journalists who, for their own good and the good of the public they serve, no longer want to propagandize for the beneficiaries of the status quo.

Because the power structure is so thoroughly and uniformly intent on dumping Trump – not for wholly creditable reasons, but, for a matter of such urgency, that hardly matters – opportunities for doing authentic journalism, even in the face of the propaganda mechanisms Herman and Chomsky identified, now exist to a degree that would have seemed unimaginable before November 2016.

It is a complicated business, however because the same anti-Trump animosities that make it possible to mobilize the press against the government also enable the Democratic Party to enlist support, in media circles and more generally, for the demonization of Putin and his government, with all the dangers that ensue.

So, by all means, investigate, investigate, and investigate some more – taking care, however, not to be sidetracked onto false paths where perils of Clintonite design threaten to spin out of control in ways that even competent statesmen, like Putin and Sergey Lavrov, would have a hard time diffusing, if they still had reasonable interlocutors in Washington to work with.

Those are, to put it mildly, in short supply. With Trump in the White House and a bipartisan (but Clinton inspired) neocon consensus in Congress, reasonable interlocutors in Washington are about as numerous as genuine progressives in the Democratic fold. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine

ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Aug 08, 2017] According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called deep state is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration

Notable quotes:
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
Aug 08, 2017 | foreignpolicy.com

Anyone else seen this little beauty from Foreign Policy?

"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."

Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty good.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Aug 6, 2017 10:27:47 PM | 68

[Aug 07, 2017] Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

Notable quotes:
"... These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads. After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author) ..."
"... It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia. The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar ..."
"... As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded. ..."
"... , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November. Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia. The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top Robert Parry 31

These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads. After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author)

The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top. A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.

Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration , they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks .

But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left's disgust with President Trump.

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."

But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

'Hand-Picked' Analysts

According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Neocon logic at its finest

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous."

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents. Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, "We told you so" that the U.S. government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Aug 04, 2017] What made Mueller such a great asset for the deep state?

Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism." ..."
"... Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria > > , August 4, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT

What made Mueller such a great asset for the deep state?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/08/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/

"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang . Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

[Aug 04, 2017] Reuben Fischer-Baum

Looks like Bezos has some interesting connections ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post has obtained transcripts of two conversations President Trump had with foreign leaders: one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. ..."
Aug 03, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

The Washington Post has obtained transcripts of two conversations President Trump had with foreign leaders: one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

use2beadem, 9:47 PM EDT

Publishing the content of these calls is bad for our country, our democracy and the glue that binds us together.

The Post's disdain of this President is clearly overtaking judgment. Publishing calls of any President with other world leaders is part of the coup the Post is waging and participating in against the President.

(I don't remember a single call transcript between Obama and another leader being published in the Post). The Left surely won't like it when the tables are turned on them.

[Aug 03, 2017] The Magnitsky Hoax

Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
Aug 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder, who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party, William Browder studied economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.

From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.

He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the loans-for-shares scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.

Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In his book Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.

As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully, made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during and since that time, though there have been skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different, which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.

Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly after he had a heart attack. A subsequent investigation ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.

Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer, which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.

Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.

In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used to carry out the deception.

To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided. It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.

Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right, though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain, Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what the consequences of proposed action might be.

One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing to explain himself at times and he has avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.

A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov

likbez, August 4, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.

Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".

http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Economics&Finance/+Doc-Economics&Finance-GovernmentInfluence&Meddling/BankstersInRussiaAndGlobalEconomy.htm

During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia? Here is pretty interesting and educational reading

https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder-hermitage-capital-management-and-wondrous-metamorphoses/

One quote:

"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond Safra."

His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that some influential British structures were behind his activities.

In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and already started talking.

Boris N, June 28, 2016 at 6:04 am GMT

It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something you now must decipher.

"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".

There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.

But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers. And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.

Haxo Angmark, Website June 28, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything – even upbrink to a nuclear WW III – to destroy Nationalist Russia

Boris N, June 28, 2016 at 6:36 am GMT

And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy of the West.

I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.

But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.

And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names, I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.

exiled off mainstreet, June 28, 2016 at 6:55 am GMT

The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.

Rehmat, June 28, 2016 at 8:33 am GMT

Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized Jewry.

In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's "number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust Museum – his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.

Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.

"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU. He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.

https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/24/madeleine-albright-putin-is-an-evil-man/

Philip Giraldi, June 28, 2016 at 11:43 am GMT

@Rehmat

Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.

Wizard of Oz, June 28, 2016 at 3:57 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.

Rurik, June 28, 2016 at 5:06 pm GMT

@Boris N Hello Boris,

But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.

in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being systematically murdered off

Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here, fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.

It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West, where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.

That's how it seems to me anyways.

(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)

bunga, June 28, 2016 at 5:53 pm GMT

@Rehmat

I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio

In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached

Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .

WTF with these shitheads

Rehmat, June 28, 2016 at 10:32 pm GMT

Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).

During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.

During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle – published on November 27.

"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution. People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern said.

When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."

He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record. I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.

https://rehmat1.com/2015/11/28/rep-mcgovern-only-hamas-can-guarantee-israels-security/

Anonymous, Disclaimer June 29, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Anonymous Scotland the Brave

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/scotland-the-brave/?highlight=pan+am+103+lockerbie

Sam J., June 29, 2016 at 3:06 am GMT

@Anonymous As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?

A: Which one is the Jew?"

Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth into a blaspheme of some sort.

Art, June 29, 2016 at 4:09 am GMT

@Rehmat

Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).

God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians he is responsible for murdering?

Wizard of Oz, June 29, 2016 at 7:51 am GMT

@Anonymous Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?

The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew. Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that neither of them are Jews.

Carroll Price, June 29, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT

A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987)

Philip Giraldi, June 29, 2016 at 10:05 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/

alexander, June 29, 2016 at 10:34 am GMT

@Carroll Price Carroll,

If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .

Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.

peterike, June 29, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT

@Greasy William

I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish or anything.

That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her. Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.

http://magnitskybook.com/?page_id=29

Carroll Price, June 29, 2016 at 3:33 pm GMT

@Greasy William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.

http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Elena_Servettaz

JL, June 29, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally back in the 90s and 00s.

Eileen Kuch, June 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm GMT

@Boris N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia, as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.

However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken, incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were – during his Presidency – looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.

Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity. As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries, including the US. In a way, these two nations – Russia and the US – have switched ideologies. Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.

helena, June 29, 2016 at 9:01 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically Jewish"."

Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe that fact.

Carroll Price, June 30, 2016 at 4:27 am GMT

@Carroll Price https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/jean-marie-le-pen-fined-again-dismissing-holocaust-detail

Wizard of Oz, June 30, 2016 at 7:15 am GMT

@Eileen Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian, so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?

I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too disreputable.

A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry – pure Anglo-Celt it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".

Boris N, June 30, 2016 at 7:29 pm GMT

@Rurik

in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?

Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the same duo, by the way).

Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.

Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power. Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.

The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures (usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks). And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is a second (true?) capital of Russia.

So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.

Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?) documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their real goal is just to hide the real truth.

Boris N, June 30, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT

@Rurik

from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being systematically murdered off

As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country, in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference. This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were born or live there.

And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin oligarchic clique.

And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):

  • Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
  • Low Middle 40% – $200-$400
  • High Middle 20% – $400-$600
  • Upper 5% – $600-$1200

In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but they comprise barely 15% of the population.

And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.

I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where 70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.

And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims and Muslim immigrants.

Boris N, June 30, 2016 at 9:00 pm GMT

@Eileen Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above, Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted. Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned, rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money. The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.

And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people". It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.

However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly believe there are many better alternatives.

Carroll Price, July 1, 2016 at 2:00 am GMT

@Boris N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact, it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts – in the wrong direction. It's obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same would be true for the average Russian today.

Rurik, July 2, 2016 at 7:33 pm GMT

@Boris N Thank you for your reply Boris.

We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies, and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.

Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish 'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild- to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man. A giant on the world's stage.

He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.

Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done.

That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations.. Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.

How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.

That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.

Boris N, July 2, 2016 at 8:15 pm GMT

@Carroll Price

I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue, like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better "spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.

Greasy William, July 2, 2016 at 8:22 pm GMT

We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .

1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him. He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's deal.

2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would be quick to tell you.

Rurik, July 2, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT

He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's deal.

Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!

2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.

again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case may be, but sure as shit don't like them.

Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists

no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not

Greasy William, July 2, 2016 at 9:37 pm GMT

@Rurik

Bibi is the king of the Jews

Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.

Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your quote!

But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.

Carroll Price, July 2, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT

@Boris N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this out.

Greasy William, July 2, 2016 at 10:42 pm GMT

but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get.

Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable. As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 12:30 pm GMT

@Rurik I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices (I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the West.

And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white.

On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true).

Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom).

What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong.

Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow, you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 12:46 pm GMT

@Greasy William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions about the past and the current affairs.

Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran, Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here, most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly internal problems.

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 12:56 pm GMT

@Carroll Price

I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy, when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Greasy William

It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual" San Salvador?

Greasy William, July 4, 2016 at 7:19 pm GMT

Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual" San Salvador?

But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.

I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about

The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed on their asses.

And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples of national states, of what Russia must become.

They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?

Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have ever read and I really liked it a lot.

Rurik, July 5, 2016 at 2:11 pm GMT

@Boris N Hey Boris,

The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the West.

well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.

Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.

I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white.

I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies, and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).

When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the line.

but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare

It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)

I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.

My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation. (it's what the do ; )

And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.

But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.

It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia, and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.

For what it's worth.

cheers

Rurik, July 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm GMT

@Greasy William

The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.

I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.

The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.

how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?

From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian émigrés, and their take on things must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.

here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist

http://www.network54.com/Forum/84302

another

http://slavija.proboards.com/

here's the Pravda main forum

http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/forum/3-main-forum/

lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the Russian nationalists are on about

(they love Putin ; )

Rurik, July 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm GMT

@Greasy William

Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable. As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.

having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.

This from an article on Russia today:

Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we are addicted to a beautiful soul.

more:

Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country. Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine? Is this not a double standard?

.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.

http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/04-07-2016/134920-russians_foreigners-0/

NoseytheDuke, July 6, 2016 at 3:22 am GMT

@Greasy William

I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.

Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.

I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets.

Boris N, July 9, 2016 at 2:25 am GMT

@Rurik

the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.

To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.

I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated on many issues.

It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.

OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado, or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters. But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them both.

But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.

Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information. You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person, Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government, if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people, I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.

And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.

Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.

And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope,

Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team" are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his deceit, how naive.

Boris N, July 9, 2016 at 2:42 am GMT

@Greasy William

The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed on their asses.

If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority. Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.

They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?

Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money.

Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said Israel was taken as an example I meant something like that .

Boris N, July 9, 2016 at 2:56 am GMT

@Rurik

lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the Russian nationalists are on about

(they love Putin ; )

No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.

The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.

[Aug 03, 2017] Transcripts show that for Trump, the political optics are paramount

Aug 03, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

In this occasional series, we will bring you up to speed on the biggest national security stories of the week.

On Thursday, The Washington Post published previously undisclosed transcripts from President Trump's conversations with Mexican President Enrique Peńa Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The two heated exchanges provided extraordinary insight into Trump's approach to diplomacy. Trump went back and forth with the Mexican president on which country will pay for the border wall, telling him that the best solution is to stop discussing the issue. Trump became exasperated with Australia's prime minister when Turnbull insisted that Trump would have to honor a deal signed by President Barack Obama that the United States would accept refugees detained by Australia.

But perhaps one of the most fascinating takeaways from the conversations was Trump's focus on his political successes and image, not the policy issues the two foreign leaders attempted to steer the conversations toward.

[Aug 02, 2017] Sanctions, smoke and mirrors from a kindergarten on LSD by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
Jul 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?

Let's try to figure out what is going on here.

First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?

The website " Business Pundit: Expert Driven " has helpfully posted an article which lists the 10 top most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC . They are (in the same order as in the original article)

  • Tech Lobby
  • Mining Industry
  • Defense Industry
  • Agribusiness Industry
  • Big Oil
  • Financial Lobby
  • Big Pharma
  • AARP
  • Pro-Israel Lobby
  • NRA
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the "Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list. Any name on it jump at you yet?

One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.

"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".

Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.

I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.

First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables" voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next, the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him, but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo --

So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control, they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions (even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.

Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.

First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing: instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last year. Why now?

Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping" for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even "in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.

People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB, the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part. This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost, PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally, he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.

I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.

That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.

It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out" between Russia and the USA.

And Trump's reaction?

He declared that he would sign the bill.

Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.

With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up on Trump.

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.

For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".

Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees in Russia is just a first step.

Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны (nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning" in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.

Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.

I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.

The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more adult partner than The Donald.

But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.

Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting. Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop Witches' Sabbath in Washington DC.

I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict, none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid, degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and 1990s.

[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!), a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or, at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged! I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends, allies and even brothers.]

Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.

But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT

Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

Sharrukin > , August 1, 2017 at 1:50 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.

That is no small part of why Trump got elected.

Antagonize Russia to what purpose?

Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?

Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?

The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links to Fusion GPS is true.

Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.

The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.

We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me as incompetent in his other business dealings.

A power struggle seems to make the most sense.

Ned > , August 1, 2017 at 2:07 am GMT

God bless you Saker

Ned > , August 1, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Your trolling comment is offensive

Excal > , August 1, 2017 at 2:26 am GMT

"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government."

I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.

I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile. I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.

I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

@Ned Your trolling comment is offensive You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that?

exiled off mainstreet > , August 1, 2017 at 5:07 am GMT

Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war.

NoseytheDuke > , August 1, 2017 at 6:21 am GMT

@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.

Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.

Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 1, 2017 at 6:22 am GMT

I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)

In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the "known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle) is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc., you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort, CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly, has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know, and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold, Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)

That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee) are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires, including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.

If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review, check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If your mind has been closed, let it open.

"Yet none dare call it treason."

Parbes > , August 1, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out, one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity, which must be broken.

utu > , August 1, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond.

Randal > , August 1, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT

But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.

Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates Nikki Haley's open warmongering).

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump's Foreign Policy

Randal > , August 1, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.

Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly) singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.

Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?

He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.

And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary importance for US foreign and military policy.

JL > , August 1, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched and not slashed.

As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with, since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same view. Dmitry Trenin:

"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere: in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."

It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.

animalogic > , August 1, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT

Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising this very interesting and very pregnant issue:

"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."

This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.

However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."

The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling class.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.

And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump. With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government.

I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions

Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.

Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.

Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock

Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama

See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound like a kindergartner on LSD.

"I would have called it stupid"

Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

@Randal


I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly) singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.

Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.

And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things

I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall "incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.

As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He contradicts himself.

Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 1, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."

And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run is also most profitable in the long run.

"Yet none dare call it treason."

Robert Magill > , August 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.

This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently. Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much bigly. All will be well --

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Sean > , August 1, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Sean > , August 1, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT

@Robert Magill


I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently. Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much bigly. All will be well --

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .

Alan Donelson > , August 1, 2017 at 8:03 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then, why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT

And yet, every Senator except Paul and Sanders voted for this.

2 men out of "100″ men looks like the regular average.

Chuck > , August 1, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)

In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the "known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle) is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc., you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort, CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly, has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know, and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold, Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)

That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee) are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires, including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.

If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review, check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If your mind has been closed, let it open.

"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national

Priss Factor > , Website August 2, 2017 at 4:08 am GMT

Let the US reveal itself to be totally owned by Zionist globalists.

And if EU goes along, it will only show itself as cuck vassals of the US.

Russia needs to fix its problems and build a super-economy of its own.

With China and Iran as partners, Russia can do much if they put their mind to it.

But do Russians have the National Character?

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website August 2, 2017 at 4:15 am GMT

@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond.

And obviously Putin is a superman

Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything is a stroke of genius.

These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize these mediocrities for what they are.

NoseytheDuke > , August 2, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock

Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama

See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound like a kindergartner on LSD.

"I would have called it stupid"

Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart. I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.

Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 2, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT

@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national "Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill

Thanks, Chuck. That's a great catch.

aaaa returns > , August 2, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out. He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.

There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.

I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.

nsa > , August 2, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT

The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media) just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .

KA > , August 2, 2017 at 5:25 am GMT

Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay nt bother to inform America .

Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially . Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic policies .

America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle down on dictatorship.

F > , August 2, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Ned God bless you Saker Creepy comment.

Sergey Krieger > , August 2, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"

There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+ months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner, not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.

Sergey Krieger > , August 2, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 8:07 am GMT

@Randal


But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates Nikki Haley's open warmongering).

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump's Foreign Policy

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.

It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).

The Alarmist > , August 2, 2017 at 9:06 am GMT

The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying will be done over there in their estimation.

TheJester > , August 2, 2017 at 10:20 am GMT

Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.

Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.

The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

Does that make any sense to you?

No.

And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked by utter crackpots.

It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.

mp > , August 2, 2017 at 10:56 am GMT

Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used. Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.

Wizard of Oz > , August 2, 2017 at 10:58 am GMT

I'm afraid you're right.

But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.

Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!

And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference to that Senate vote?

Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its dug in positions.

The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as that?

white noise > , August 2, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

@Anonymous


I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump. With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government.

I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government."

Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour

KA > , August 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system of the world will force this merger .

Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness will not disappear from daily discourse .

ffff > , August 2, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

Anyone else find their comments censored on thesaker? Seems like a "pro"-russian version of CNN

utu > , August 2, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Stephen R. Diamond


And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything is a stroke of genius.

These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.

Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?

I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.

n230099 > , August 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

" 10 top most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC. They are (in the same order as in the original article)

Tech Lobby
Mining Industry
Defense Industry
Agribusiness Industry
Big Oil
Financial Lobby
Big Pharma
AARP
Pro-Israel Lobby
NRA"

Well, some are 'lobbies' but some are just bogeymen.

white noise > , August 2, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high"

That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For the US one can imagine what those might be.

John Q. Public > , August 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.

Joe Hide > , August 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality, or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

Lesson unlearned.

Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent temporary advantage.

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]

Aedib > , August 2, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

Great article. Quite accurate description of the hubris infected American establishment.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse

Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on their collective asses permanently. Sometime.

Aedib > , August 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

@utu

Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.

https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

Pandos > , August 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.

yeah > , August 2, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.

Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome "Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars, hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare us such merry excitement.

John Q. Public > , August 2, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.

schmenz > , August 2, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!

Mulegino1 > , August 2, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?

After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."

Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 5:56 pm GMT

"The big difference is that immense and untapped potential of the USA to bounce back."

This tells me the writer is delusional. The "American Century" is over, and it did not last one hundred years. Too bad.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT

@TheJester

Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.

Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.

The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Russia humiliated America in Syria

They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project.

Suman > , August 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against the sanctions. Bernie Sanders is getting undue credit.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!

And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference to that Senate vote?

Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its dug in positions.

The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.

Joe Levantine > , August 2, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill.

Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification. What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout of WWII.

By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.

As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension in the neocons media complex.

Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free from the dominance of the neocons.

Zogby > , August 2, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.

Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who is gonna make him?

Harold Smith > , August 2, 2017 at 6:33 pm GMT

"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"

There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation. The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good", then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy, stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.

The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.

"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).

Seamus Padraig > , August 2, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide.

Miro23 > , August 2, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government.

I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.

Seamus Padraig > , August 2, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT

Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:

In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.

"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said

Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill/story?id=48985465

So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian "subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.

Sean > , August 2, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.

Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome "Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars, hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare us such merry excitement.

https://defenceindepth.co/2017/02/17/the-russian-militarys-view-on-the-utility-of-force-the-adoption-of-a-strategy-of-non-violent-asymmetric-warfare/

Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare' activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths – its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information and to employ considerable cyber abilities

The most painful sanctions for Putin are old news, it was the cancellation of the Exxon deal by the Obama administration. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-exxon-treasury-fight-and-the-roots-of-russiagate_us_597de928e4b0c69ef70528ff ).

Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.

Sean > , August 2, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT

@Anonymous

Russia humiliated America in Syria
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Johnny Rico > , Website August 2, 2017 at 7:47 pm GMT

It is all about the oil.

Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed.

The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE. Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get this.

The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control" of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control over its real one and only rival – China.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.

The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.

While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.

Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.

peterAUS > , August 2, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

@anonymous

Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.

The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils of the expansion. If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.

And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..

[Aug 02, 2017] Meet the all-star team of lawyers Robert Mueller has assembled for the Trump-Russia investigation

From witch hunt there is a very small distance to "show trials". Show me the man and I will find the crime -- Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria , head of Stalin's secret police
Notable quotes:
"... several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, ..."
"... "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter . ..."
Aug 02, 2017 | www.msn.com
... Yet despite the lawyers' resumes and reputations, several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, prompting some critics to cry foul on the investigation and urge Trump to fire Mueller.

Trump himself has even weighed in:

"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter .

[Aug 02, 2017] Show Me The Man And Ill Find You The Crime by Bob Barr

The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | townhall.com

The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting to share together in that idyllic " Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now, waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan" for sins and improprieties.

This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale of a government lawyer in search of a crime.

Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.

Rather than setting specific parameters for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.

As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search of a guilty man.

Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly) recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.

What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices.

The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome. As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance" and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date. "That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent," writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."

At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.

[Jul 31, 2017] After pushing disastrous policies and wars, prominent neoconservatives are reinventing themselves as members of the anti-Trump resistance

Jul 31, 2017 | gravatar.com
Warren says: July 30, 2017 at 7:16 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/qp9Vn_I9QdM?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Published on 29 Jul 2017

After pushing disastrous policies and wars, prominent neoconservatives are reinventing themselves as members of the anti-Trump "resistance" with the help of top Democrats and MSNBC, says The Nation's James Carden

[Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism. ..."
"... The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun. ..."
"... Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. ..."
"... For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery. ..."
"... The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. ..."
"... The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution. ..."
"... In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations ..."
"... The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity. ..."
"... Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side. ..."
"... Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same. ..."
"... Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies. ..."
"... Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy. ..."
"... We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
Originally from: People's World

The question of the labor movement under fascism is the question of what to do when it is already too late. Racist vigilante attacks are intensifying, comrades are being indicted, workers are being deported, bosses are breaking labor law with even greater impunity, the press is under threat, civil liberties are disappearing, politicians are attempting to rule by diktat, police are even more out of control, war is on the horizon. Everywhere, the threadbare niceties of the state under liberalism have vanished.

We are not ready for this. The general strike seems like the only reasonable response, but the existing left and labor organizations are hard-pressed to mobilize for one. The working class is self-organizing, but success remains far from certain. What is this hell we are entering? How did we get here, and what role can the working class play in helping us find a way out?

Origins of Fascism

Fascism did not start out as a pejorative term. The word originates from the Latin fasces, a term for a bundle of sticks bound together around an axe so that they could not be broken, a symbol of unity and power. In ancient Rome, the fasces were carried by lictors, the bodyguards of magistrates and other state officials. The sticks could be unbundled to mete out beatings as prescribed by magistrates. The axe was used for the death penalty.

Fascism first appeared in social movement usage not on the right, but on the Italian left in the late-nineteenth century as a symbol or term for "league" or "group" for various socialist and syndicalist organizations. It was in fact a former socialist who indelibly stamped fascist as an adjective for the far right: Benito Mussolini. His politics were shaped by the conflicts of modernity: violent class struggle, a bourgeoisie attempting to build a nation and a national market, and war. For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism.

Mussolini promised to make Italy great again, to return to the golden age of the Roman Empire. In his view, this could only happen through a new cross-class national unity, a powerful state under the tutelage of a new elite of Übermenschen, and a march toward war. The first task of Mussolini's fascism was the violent repression of workers' and peasants' movements in the wave of strikes and occupations after World War I, followed by the destruction of independent labor organizations once state power was attained.

The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun.

Fascism cast culture as nature. It enforced and strengthened hierarchies based on ethnic or gender identities, claiming that some are meant to be masters and others to be slaves. Fascist governments replaced liberal guarantees of civil liberties and independent civil society organizations with a reimagining of the nation as a patriarchal family based on a racist conception of self and other, and corporatist organizations subordinated to the state. Corporatism here does not refer to corporations in the sense of a private company -- it actually referred to the incorporation of bosses, workers and state bureaucrats in a single overarching organization that would supposedly reflect their common nationalist interests.

Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie.

Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. But those who were not thought to belong to the "master race" were excluded from any form of representation or organization, and subjected to hyper-exploitation. Millions of Jews, Roma, eastern Europeans and others deemed Untermenschen were subjected to persecution, forced labor and genocide.

For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery.

Continuities With Liberalism

As participants in this unfolding catastrophe, we tend to emphasize its discontinuities with the postwar liberal order that preceded the current unraveling. But the continuities are in fact more alarming, and more important to understand if we want to eradicate fascism root and branch, once and for all. Fascism is possible not in spite of liberal capitalism, but because of it. Both historically and philosophically, fascism is rooted in the same Western tradition as liberalism. Fascism continually reemerges because its seeds are incubated in the contradictions of capitalism.

The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. The centralized state was an invention of the bourgeoisie, a business innovation necessary to manage its affairs. Its bureaucracy stands ready-made for takeover by fascist thugs. Eichmann-like obedience necessary for the Fascist political project is inculcated by the state and corporate bureaucracy built by the bourgeoisie. Fascists march to war down roads that were paved by centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie.

The fascist enforcement of gender norms is a grotesque exaggeration of the patriarchal division of labor engendered by one form of capitalism. Fascism's celebration of hierarchy and legitimation of class society is an extreme form of the twin lies of liberalism: "meritocracy" (barely distinguishable as a concept from Social Darwinism) and racist essentialism. Racism itself was born of the Western project of colonialism, and given a stamp of legitimacy by Enlightenment science that sought to taxonomize all things, plants, animals and people.

Liberalism promises to keep its Id in check with guarantees of the rights of man, but this was always a promise more often broken than kept. The majority of our planet's inhabitants have already been living under a permanent state of exception. The test runs for the Nazi Holocaust were the late-Victorian holocausts of mass murder in Africa, and the genocidal colonization of the Americas and uncounted colonial massacres.

In the capitalist core, millions have long lived their lives as what Giorgio Agamben termed homo sacer -- a term from ancient Rome signifying those who are deprived of rights by the state, and subject to extra-judicial violence by the George Zimmermans of the world. Across the capitalist core, immigrants and refugees live without the promise of any kind of liberal human rights, facing possible deportation in any interaction with the authorities.

Clintonite cosmopolitan liberalism claims that these oppressions are atavisms of the past, even though they are renewed every day. It promises to unite the world Benetton-like in a multicultural global market, where everyone is equally free to exploit and be exploited. Liberalism will occasionally apologize for its racism, sexism and colonial massacres, and may make affirmative action reforms to stabilize its rule and rationalize production, or in the case of the US government's eventual concessions to the civil rights movement, to compete ideologically with the Soviet Union. But there is one place where it can never acknowledge illegitimate hierarchy: the workplace. And it is precisely here that the contradictions that propel the world toward fascism are rooted.

The Liberal Compromise

Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution.

As a form of government, fascism is not the bourgeoisie's first choice, of course. It is an unstable system prone to cronyism that places certain limits on the market. So, like the boss who wants you to try for a promotion rather than organizing a union, liberalism first tries to resolve its contradictions through expansion. This could mean economic growth through technological upgrading, or stimulation of new needs and desires to create new consumer markets, or it could mean capturing new markets through war and trade agreements. As long as the pie is getting bigger, tensions over who gets the biggest piece are diffused.

The contradiction of liberal capitalism played out in real historical time. To stabilize its own rule in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II, liberal capitalism accepted a degree of regulation, establishing norms necessary for more-or-less long-term operation of a market, and setting up a system that could compete economically and ideologically with international socialism. This took the form of the New Deal and the Keynesian welfare state, a compromise that institutionalized class struggle to boost consumption.

In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations.

After World War II, the US exported this New Deal model of labor relations through its reconstruction efforts in Western Europe and East Asia. For around thirty years, workers were rewarded for their loyalty with wage increases that matched growth in productivity. For the most part, this resulted in an apolitical acquiescence to life under capitalism. By the end of the twentieth century, liberalism seemed to reign triumphant. Some claimed that liberal capitalism was the End of History, that the age of extremes had definitively passed. Both socialism and fascism were consigned to the dustbin. Under the leadership of the WTO and the largest of the Western corporations, humanity was to march onward into a glorious consumerist future with McDonald's, Starbucks and Apple products for all.

How wrong they were.

Post-Liberalism

Everywhere, authoritarian regimes are winning out over centrist liberalism. The Chinese model of development -- an authoritarian state with just enough market relations to fill the pockets of a kleptocratic elite -- has become the dominant development paradigm for much of Asia and Africa. Western corporate elites have watched jealously as mega-projects and mega-profits that would take years of political wrangling in the capitalist core get the green light in China. Nevertheless, most sectors of capital still seem to prefer Clintonite liberalism to Trumpian fascism, or certainly to Bernie Sanders' social democracy. But increasingly, the centrist option is off the table, for reasons of the bourgeoisie's own doing.

The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity.

The decay of the liberal system is nowhere more evident than in labor relations. The stable system of collective bargaining put in place by the National Labor Relations Act was under attack from the far right since its inception -- but has been most effectively undermined by the liberal center since 1981. In that year, Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in the PATCO union, signaling open season on the labor movement. Workplace-level union-busting, the use of scabs to break strikes, automation and outsourcing all drove unionization rates in the United States down from around 30 percent in the 1950s, to barely 10 percent in 2017. Behind this evisceration is a shift in ruling-class strategy from grudging acceptance of unions in the system of labor control, to direct domination of each individual worker through "Human Resources Management."

As a result, the standard of living in the capitalist core has undergone almost half a century of decline. This has paralleled the decline of the United States as the hegemonic power in the global political economy. As this decline continues, workers in the capitalist core of all income levels have begun looking for alternatives to neoliberal politics. The mythology of the American Dream no longer works its magic of erasing class antagonisms.

Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side.

Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same.

In some cases, the post-liberal left wins or makes important gains in elections -- Syriza and Podemos serving as the most prominent examples. But their victories tend to be short-lived. Without willingness to fundamentally break with neoliberal capitalism, it is not long before voters realize that they have elected a non-solution, and turn once again to the right. The failure of the left to offer an anti-systemic alternative is what brought the fascist right to power in the United States and threatens to do the same in other places across the world. Now we need to figure out what exactly to expect, and how to fight to win.

The Other Workers' Movement

True to form as fascists, the Trump regime has set to work recasting the boundaries between self and other in the United States. It is a project of scapegoating, and of legitimizing the repression of labor and social movements. Unlike its 1930s antecedents in Germany, Italy or Spain, Trump's cartoonish fascism has not had to ban the unions and set up new ones under direct control of the state. There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United States already has one.

Since the 1980s, most workers' organizations have already been liquidated. Most workers are subjects of a capitalist dictatorship in the workplace, and millions have long been excluded from even the most basic guarantees of liberalism: to be paid for your labor, to not be summarily executed by police, to be accorded due process rights. There is a new intensity and scale to these attacks, but the line of attack itself is not actually new.

The "official" workers' movement has largely failed to resist attacks old and new. Under Trump, the labor movement has gladly divided and conquered itself, with the heads of building trade unions meeting with Trump and sycophantically glowing over the "respect" he showed them, while he prepares orders to deport millions of immigrant workers and deprive millions more citizens of their rights. Many unions simply seem to be hoping for the best, while failing to prepare for the worst. Others refuse to publicly attack Trump in the hopes of cutting some sort of deal. But no matter how close some unions get to the boss, they cannot escape the fact that their organizations are in the crosshairs more than ever. Trump's fascism seeks to finish off the legal framework of labor relations under postwar liberalism, dealing the coup de grâce to an institutional labor movement that has long been hemorrhaging members.

The resistance is therefore in the "other" workers' movement -- among those who never were included in the legal mechanisms of the compact of postwar liberalism in the first place, such as immigrant workers, the unwaged labor of women, and students. They are joined by a new "other" workers' movement: the rebel rank-and-file of the institutional unions, such as teachers and public sector workers, and increasingly, self-organized groups of workers who have never belonged to a union. As the state falls under the sway of fascist control, the weapons of this resistance are increasingly extralegal: from protests to strikes, highway blockades and physical confrontations.

While increasingly bold in tactics, resistance to fascism is so far largely conservative, in the true sense of the word: it seeks to conserve the liberal order. Until now, its battles have been mostly defensive, and if they are won, will merely put liberals back in power. The real destruction of fascism can only be accomplished by a new workers' movement, unencumbered by the sacred cows of the bureaucracies that grew up under corporate liberalism. It is in the "other" workers' movement that a radicalism beyond liberal capitalism can be imagined, and it is with the forces that we build with our own hands that it can be won.

How do we win this fight? The tasks are largely the same as before, but with a new sense of urgency, and in conditions of heavier repression. As before, we must engage millions in the fight for a different future. No true revolution is possible without mass participation. We must build a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees that make a general strike possible. We must also be prepared to go beyond a general strike, to build dual power through worker and community assemblies that will replace or transform the state with a true democracy. This is a struggle not just to restore the old world-system, but to build a new one. This is the time to be revolutionaries, to fight to win the world we actually want.

Calamity of epic proportions awaits millions in the working class. Deportations, intensified exploitation at work, the destruction of our life-giving planet, vigilante attacks, refugee crisis, resurgent misogyny, transphobia and racism, and the threat of inter-state war. It is already too late to prevent much of this. But it has always already been too late. Untold tragedy is the legacy of liberalism, and of every return of fascism. That is why we fight for the future. That is why we fight to win. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Erik Forman Erik Forman has been active in the Industrial Workers of the World since 2005, working and organizing at Starbucks and Jimmy John's. He is currently compiling a report on union strategies for organizing the food service and retail sectors as a Practitioner Fellow at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. Related Stories Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson, AlterNet | Op-Ed Fascism 101: The Police and Media Control By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed Hitler at Home: How the Nazi PR Machine Duped the World By Despina Stratigakos, The Conversation | Op-Ed Recommend Recommended Discussion Recommended!

Recommending means this is a discussion worth sharing. It gets shared to your followers' Disqus feeds, and gives the creator kudos! Find More Discussions Share Share this discussion on Twitter Facebook Sort by Newest Best Newest Oldest − +

Liberty5 , April 27, 2017 12:55 AM

Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms
the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).

Enrique Woll Battistini , April 20, 2017 2:10 PM

Ultimately, this global state of affairs could only be defended and preserved by the most rancid sort of unfettered fascism:

https://www.academia.edu/13...

Pat Luppens , April 17, 2017 6:51 PM

Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.

NoDifference , April 16, 2017 8:17 PM

With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce. We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.

Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually. Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."

So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant and enjoyable.

It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?

There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation, and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.

It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want. Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand , rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)

This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.

Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See basicincome.org and bein.org for more information.

Michael Tee , April 16, 2017 8:10 AM

Great article. One of the best ever published at Truthout. Must be studied by political activists everywhere.

gmatch , April 16, 2017 3:30 AM

America's regime can be described as a plutocratic military junta controlled by Zionists.

SkepticalPartisan , April 15, 2017 3:44 PM

Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.

democracy = power is determined by voters
capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party

The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http: www.vox.com ="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership, the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https: www.salon.com ="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.

NoDifference SkepticalPartisan , April 16, 2017 8:24 PM

Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism" is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.

SkepticalPartisan NoDifference , April 18, 2017 11:40 AM

That's my point, the semantics of political/economic systems are easily distorted. A metric of power concentration in this instance would be useful.

Orestes60 , April 15, 2017 3:11 PM

From the article: "There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United States already has one." This is another reason why liberalism whether bourgeois liberal idealism or liberal pragmatism or neoliberalism is not sufficiently anti-fascist. Additionally, liberalism in all its forms will never be anti-capitalist and pro-community socialist.

I wonder what percentage of the earth's inhabitants, who have the power to promote socialism in lieu of various "Third Ways" or imperial anarcho-capitalism, have recognized the truth of the article's graphic "Capitalism Has Outlived Its Usefulness"?

Bill_Perdue , April 15, 2017 2:59 PM

"You're not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable -- it is. There's a dangerous confluence of political, economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. At the center of each maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. " The Obama administration's decisive role in the Ukrainian conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama's Under Secretary of State was leaked, exposing the U.S.' direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected government." http://www.counterpunch.org...

Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies.

Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the Partido Socialista Obrero Espańol, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because they're pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.

There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it's advanced, the death agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class.

Libby , April 15, 2017 1:33 PM

Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability, but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.

Jethro_T , April 15, 2017 11:51 AM

The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature, which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then to subsist without wages until victory is won?

The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.

  • "The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system." --R. Buckminster Fuller
  • "Be the kind of change you wish to see in the world." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.

dmorista , April 15, 2017 11:05 AM

Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.

We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.

[Jul 30, 2017] If Western Ukrainian nationalists armed squads would have entered Crimea, and it would have been just as bad as Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed. If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.

Notable quotes:
"... I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US. ..."
"... According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014. ..."
"... If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
АТО -> Willem Post , July 29, 2017 7:06 PM

Willem Post:: "Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine"

haha! One more moron arrived! What a crap! Crimea wasn't independent, it was an autonomy within Ukraine. Crimea's annexation was prepared by Putin since 2004, i.e. 10 years earlier before it happened in real! And this is told to the world not by Ukrainians, but the Putin's former adviser Andrey Illarionov.

Steve James -> АТО , July 29, 2017 11:23 PM

The day the coup took over Kiev and abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimea became independent. And voted for independence. Crimea wanting to be part of Russia since 1991. Crimea was giving to Ukraine under the USSR illegally, there is no VOTE under the DUMA that voted Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fall of the USSR, Crimea people wanted to be Russian. And they voted this in 1991 and again in 1994. V. Putin wasnt in office until 1999. Crimea today is far better under Russia, because nearly 25 years under Ukraine it was neglected. Crimea is Russia...move. Ukraine ought to stop bombing Donbass or they'll be independent from Ukraine as well.

Michael DeStefano -> АТО , July 30, 2017 12:40 AM

Splitting hairs, are we now? au·ton·o·mous: (of a country or region) having self-government, at least to a significant degree.

Octavian Matei -> АТО , July 29, 2017 8:14 PM

I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US.

Michael DeStefano -> Octavian Matei , July 30, 2017 12:35 AM

"no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country"

When Yugoslavia was dismantled under US encouragement and with little consequence, if any, to the civil wars that would follow, such laws as the above ceased to exist.

It did the same in Ukraine. A coup d'etat using banderite thugs for the final coup de grace. Did Nuland or McCain or anyone else in Washington care if it led to a bloody aftermath that frankly, any schoolboy could have predicted? They cared about their agenda, period and d@mn the consequences.

Willem Post Michael DeStefano , July 30, 2017 12:02 PM

Their agenda, since 1945, has been to get Russia out of East Europe and the Caucasus, and have the Black Sea become a NATO lake.

The Arioch -> АТО , July 29, 2017 11:25 AM

According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014.

And that is not mentioning Sevastopole city.

Swiss_Talk -> The Arioch , July 29, 2017 2:44 PM

Tell me what happened to Chechen referendum

VadimKharichkov -> Swiss_Talk , July 29, 2017 6:39 PM

The Khasavyurt Accord granted vast amount of independence to Chechen Republic back in 1996. But infact Chenchnya broke apart into regions held by local clan warlords, who were making money on contraband, crudely refining petroleum into gasoline, kidnapping people for ransom from neighboring Russian regions. The republic has also become a hotbed of religious extremism that culmitated in Shamil Basaev's invasion into Dagestan region.

Do some research before mentioning things, because these two cases are hardly compatible.

Michael DeStefano -> VadimKharichkov , July 30, 2017 12:51 AM

Yep, the Saudis enthusiastically sought to turn Chechnya into what they've managed to turn Syria into today, with more than a little help from its 'friends'.

shmaktastic -> Swiss_Talk , July 29, 2017 4:13 PM

there were none.

Michael DeStefano -> Swiss_Talk , July 30, 2017 1:04 AM

Tell me what happened to the Ukrainian referendum that decided to oust the old president by force instead of waiting a few months to vote him out or at the least, impeach him constitutionally. Hmmm? Cat got your tongue now? Thought so.

Steve James -> Swiss_Talk , July 29, 2017 11:27 PM

Chechen had a referendum, and it was successful. Not only Chechnya has more autonomy power, but they have a elected office to represent Chechnya in Moscow. Today, Chechnya has been peaceful with Gronzy growing. Not to mention, many Chechen soldiers are fighting side by side with the Russian government in Syria.

Michael DeStefano -> The Arioch , July 30, 2017 12:47 AM

I've always wondered why the US seems always to rush to uphold the edicts of previous Soviet rulers as sacrosanct. Stalin with S. Ossetia and Krushchev with Crimea.

I've also always wondered why all of the nations of Eastern Europe, sans Poland, that the US seems to favor are those who were enthusiastic collaborators and co-combatants with Hitler's troops in WWII. Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, the Baltic States and now Ukraine.

Seems rather odd to me, maybe even a bit telling.

АТО The Arioch , July 29, 2017 11:44 AM

The Arioch: "According to Soviet laws..." What a crap! Ukraine as well as Russia and Belarus founded the USSR! And all the three listed above discontinued it.

As for soviet laws...Just well known thing: Hitler came to power absolutely legally and what he ended up with?

Once more: USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)

grumpy_carpenter -> АТО , July 29, 2017 1:02 PM

"USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)"

This is refreshing. The USSR was indeed founded by un-godly terrorists ..... I mean what country can claim legitimacy unless founded peacefully on rule of law.

Now that this is clear I expect the USA to return the thirteen colonies to Britain as at the earliest possible convenience and we can begin discussion reparations.

Willem Post -> АТО , July 29, 2017 5:04 PM

The US was founded with guns as well. It is called the Revolutionary War.

shmaktastic -> АТО , July 29, 2017 4:14 PM

You don't even understand what kind of crap you wrote do you?

The Arioch -> АТО , July 29, 2017 11:54 AM

They could be among ones who founded it. But they were not only members of it. There was legal and illegal way to exit USSR. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus chosen illegal way. For Kiev it was a tool to press illegal occupation over Sevastopole and Crimea. Which lasted more long that it was needed, but ended in 2014.

And you are correct about Hitler. When finally breaking out of that Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine, Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were worth.

АТО -> The Arioch , July 29, 2017 3:23 PM

The Arioch: "Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine" What a crap again! Lenin built jail of nations called USSR, that's right! "Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were worth."

You're just a moron!

Poroshenko became an Ukrainian president after Russia annexed Crimea

DAVE -> АТО , July 30, 2017 9:46 AM

AMERICAN.MEXICAN .WAR.1846 THE LAND GRAB BY THE AMERICANS ALMOST HALF OF THE U.S.A. TODAY.

shmaktastic -> АТО , July 29, 2017 10:35 PM

Lenin actually is the guy who created Ukraine, No Lenin, no Ukraine.

VadimKharichkov -> АТО , July 30, 2017 12:41 PM

By stating this you're implying Soviets usurped the power. This is not true. To begin with, Soviets, or Councils were trade unions and they formed themselves as an alternative to czarist ruling institutions during WW1 and February and October Revolutions. They were grassroots all right. Both Soviets and Bolsheviks enjoyed high appeal among regular people because they offered solutions to very tough questions regarding land ownership (taking it from aristocrats) and large business (taking it from oligarchs into collective ownership).

Eventually the Red Army managed to defeat 17 armies during the Civil War. That wouldn't have been possible without wide support among the people. Sure there was the Red Terror unleashed after several assasination attempts on Soviet leadership. But frankly, as tragic as it is, tough times demand tough measures.

Michael DeStefano -> АТО , July 30, 2017 12:56 AM

So, if you don't recognize Soviet laws, then you don't recognize Soviet edicts and you cannot legitimately recognize Krushchev's edict handing Crimea to Ukraine's jurisdiction, which btw..his son has explained that it was just a simple transfer to Ukraine of full management of construction of the water canal to Crimea. A water canal which, along with electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine, so apparently, the job is finished.

АТО -> Michael DeStefano , July 30, 2017 5:17 AM

Michael DeStefano: "A water canal which, along with electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine"

The next moron arrived!

Crimea is occupied by Russian troops, (proved by Putin himself).

Tell yourself, Russian troll: did Stalin supplied the territories occupied by Hitler during WWII? Maybe Stalin sent there foods, electricity etc?

So, why does Ukraine should supply the territories occupied by Russia with any resources?

Willem Post АТО , July 30, 2017 12:09 PM

ATO,
Russia and Ukraine have an agreement that allows Russia to have 22,000 armed services members in Crimea. The Russia presence before the annexing was LEGAL by treaty.

Errick458 -> АТО , July 29, 2017 7:25 PM

Under Ukrainian law Viktor Yanukovych was never legally removed from office. His removal and replacement was a violation of the Ukrainian Constitution.

Willem Post -> Errick458 , July 30, 2017 12:02 PM

Russia picked up phone call traffic that was planning his assassination. He fled to save his life.

Strategem -> АТО , July 30, 2017 1:00 PM

Remember Texas ? A century in history of diplomatic relations means nothing. Right of self determination can not be selective.

Michael DeStefano -> Willem Post , July 29, 2017 10:14 AM

If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.

[Jul 30, 2017] Derek Harvey - one less neocon

Looks like there are a lot of neocons in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Individual incompetence is rarely a path to senior position. But when the Command is rotten from the top down, it happens more frequently. ..."
"... In a similar vein how can the entire US Senate minus 2 vote for a sanctions proposal which is patently and demonstrably based on false premises? ..."
"... American policy in regards to everything is easily understood by one basic concept. Follow the money. ..."
"... Legend in his own mind. How many more like him are influencing/making foreign policy decisions? Scary. Nice take down pl. ..."
"... Update: the blue ticks on twitter are reporting Trump 'sources' associated with Preibus are saying Trump is moving toward an independent whitehouse detached from the GOP. ..."
"... In fact, if true, this looks like a "neocon coup". It was bad enough they had control of State and influence at the Pentagon during Bush, now it looks they have total control of the White House AND State and still influence in the Pentagon... ..."
"... In hindsight it was a big mistake for Trump to think he could work with the GOP establishment. Better to rely on business, the military and other outsiders for his staff. ..."
"... It was straight Leo Strauss/neocon stuff. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm ..."
"... The Protestant Christians in US and in UK - as a big part of Electorate - are largely responsible for enabling the neocons. The West has bought and paid for A RELIGIOUS indulgence, called Israel and is unwilling to either admit or accept that it has led to a religious war. I guess the West expects to prevail. ..."
"... "Are you calling CNN fake news?" The more apt description would be Fraudulent news. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

" Derek J. Harvey was the first Director of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Center of Excellence at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and a retired United States Army Colonel . He was selected by General David Petraeus in 2009 to lead the new organization. [1] Harvey is a Senior Executive Service -member of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and was the previous senior analytical specialist for Iraq to Petraeus, then Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq."

Wiki on Harvey

-------------

A very odd biographical wiki. It doesn't say much of anything about him. It is as though he was born anew when he came to Petraeus' attention as a briefer/analyst working in the big FOB at the Baghdad airport. Usually these things describe your life, parentage, education, marriage, etc. There is none of that. It is also rather out of date, being from the time when Mike Flynn brought him into DIA as a member of the Senior Executive Service.

I have known DH for a very long time.

  1. He evidently does not like to talk about his service in DIA as a captain in the late '80s. He was then a very green junior analyst in the Current Intelligence branch of DIA down in the basement of the Pentagon. Bob Woodward in "The War Within..." writes that in the late 80s Harvey wandered the back roads in Iraq traveling about 500 miles, chatting with villagers, headmen and tribal leaders to learn what the true state of affairs might be. This is untrue. If Harvey told Woodward that, he lied IMO. Saddam was then fully in power and an American who wandered in Iraq would shortly have been in prison or worse. No, Harvey was scribbling away in his basement cubicle in the Pentagon and hanging around my upstairs offices whenever my staff were silly enough to let him in through the alarmed door. I finally banned him from the office suite because he had no legitimate business there other than to try to obtain tutoring from me.
  2. I should be clear about his supposed adventures in Saddam's Iraq. Nobody in DIA would have sent or allowed this junior desk jockey to go do anything of the kind. He would have required orders in writing to make this trip. A number of people would have been needed as signatures on the permission, among them, me, and that never happened. If there had been official orders they would have required the allocation of funds in the orders. The idea that DIA would have funded this is laughable. If he had gone to Iraq on leave without permission the Iraqi police would have picked him up at the point of entry. In any event he would have needed the permission of the US ambassador and the US DATT to be in the country. That never happened either. In other words he seems to have built a "Harvey of Iraq" legend about himself out of whole cloth.
  3. He speaks no Arabic. None. That would have made his Laurentian or Munchausian adventures somewhat more difficult. In some web bios he is said to have an elementary knowledge of French and Farsi. Farsi? How would that have happened?
  4. He does not seem to have ever had any training as a field intelligence collector.
  5. He does not seem to have been board selected for senior Army schools like C&GSC and the War College. Perhaps he did these schools by correspondence or was given constructive credit for "experience?"
  6. So far as I know he never served in a Middle East or North African country before 9/11.
  7. His teaching job at South Florida University does not seem to have involved teaching about the Middle East. It was something about management that he taught.

Well, pilgrims, perhaps I have all this wrong, if so, then I will welcome your corrections. I am sure there will be some.

In the present instance of his dismissal from the NSC staff it is now clear to me that he thought he could wrestle control of the ME policy function away from McMaster and Mattis. He seems to have believed that he could do that with the slick persuasiveness that had worked so well for so long on so many and with the support of his neocon patrons.

Here is the statement he released yesterday on the occasion of his departure for greener pastures:

"Subject: Derek Harvey - Statement

I will be leaving the National Security Council today to take advantage of a new opportunity to continue serving our President and the United States of America in an important capacity.

Since January, I have had the special honor to serve as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Middle East Affairs in the National Security Council. This has been work of vital importance to our country, and my departure comes with mixed emotions. In addition to the criticality of the mission, the people I have worked with in the NSC and the White House make this a tough decision.

I have known LTG H.R. McMaster for many years, and H.R. and I have worked closely together to tackle some of our nation's most difficult challenges. I value our friendship and deeply respect his visionary leadership. I look forward to working with H.R. in my future capacity. I have also appreciated the chance to work with the superb, selfless professionals on our team at the NSC, an amazing group of American patriots who have been instrumental in supporting the President, integrating U.S. policies toward the Middle East, and developing a series of strategies to protect and advance American interests in the region.

I treasure having had the opportunity to support committed and visionary leaders such as Mrs. K.T. McFarland, Mr. Jared Kushner, and Mr. Steve Bannon, and consummate professionals like Mr. Jason Greenblatt and Ms. Dina Powell. I am especially grateful for the Middle East Directorate and those on the NSC with whom we have worked so closely and with such great effect. I remain humbled by their dedication, commitment, and patriotism and wish them all the very best as they face the challenges ahead.

Most importantly, I am excited about the opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East under President Trump's leadership, and I look forward to shouldering greater responsibilities in support of the President.

Sincerely,

Derek J. Harvey

Special Assistant to the President

Near East Region"

Vic -> Larry Kart ... , 29 July 2017 at 09:31 AM

As a single individual alone accomplishing it, it is rare (just as the opposite is true, extremely talented officers are also rare). However, in a case where the leadership of a Command is rotten, it is not rare at all.

Flynn at DIA IMO was a disaster. His "vision" behind reorganizing was to make DIA mostly an annex of J2 CENTOM. It was so disruptive and counter productive that he was replaced before the normal tour end. Harvey thrived on the CENTOM focused mission. Harvey was not the only questionable person that Flynn bumped up to the senior ranks.

So where did Flynn come from? He made his spurs working with General Petraeus. He bought into Petraeus's perpetual war, and hearts and minds COIN doctrine (with associated intelligence concept of the "human terrain"). In the end Petraeus also self destructed as a fraud and a very flawed officer.

In turn, Petraeus was a result of President Bush (2). A leader with incredibly poor judgement who brought together an incompetent circus of NeoCons (Chicken Hawks) to wage an unnecessary war in an incoherent manner.

Individual incompetence is rarely a path to senior position. But when the Command is rotten from the top down, it happens more frequently.

Vic

Mark Chapman -> Larry Kart ... , 29 July 2017 at 09:54 AM
Does everyone remember Michael "Heck of a Job, Brownie" D. Brown, the first-ever Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response? His Baptism by Mud in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Michael D. Brown's background experience for running a large casualty-management organization was as Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association.

To be fair, he was not so much a weasel as he had others do the promotion for him, which appears to have been based on doglike loyalty and nothing else. You'd be surprised how far that will take you - depending on the character of your leader - in quite a few organizations.

Haralambos , 28 July 2017 at 12:20 PM
This is up from yesterday on Harvey's dismissal: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/derek-harvey-trump-middle-east-adviser-dismissed-241037

Here is a revealing quote from the article:

"Harvey was viewed as one of Trump's more hawkish foreign policy advisers, particularly on Iran, whose leadership he has studied closely and which he recommends confronting more aggressively. He has also been a staunch critic of the Iran nuclear deal.... Many military officials consider him the government's most knowledgeable source on the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and Syria."

turcopolier , 28 July 2017 at 12:37 PM
Larry Kart

This level of self-promotion is unusual in one so specialized. pl

Old Microbiologist -> turcopolier ... , 28 July 2017 at 01:07 PM
I have seen the equivalent in the science arena. I know of at least 2 biodefense scientists who were so bad at getting funding for projects they were moved over to management positions. This is what happens with permanent GS civilians.

You can't fire them so you move them to relatively harmless positions such as program managers or outreach program people. After 9/11 Congress in their wisdom decided we needed yet another mother of all government agencies and created the Department of Homeland Security.

However, they failed to create any permanent GS slots to put into this agency. So, every government agency was required to move authorized/obligated positions over to DHS and this would include any personnel currently holding those slots. No one would ever give up good and productive people so all the dregs were moved over to DHS. This might help explain why DHS has been so screwed up from the get go. As you might expect these 2 scientists were moved over to senior positions and eventually slimed their way to the top and became SES scientific managers and ultimately heads of programs. Kissing ass works well for a lot of people especially when the ass you are kissing is more incompetent that you are.

This might explain why the DHS biodefense programs are so screwed up. One of them is now over at FDA working hard to screw that agency up and the other went over to DHHS (NIH) where they are working hard to screw that up as well. A few very rare people went over to DHS who were good and did it voluntarily but they eventually regretted it having to work for these former loser scientists.There are no smiling faces at DHS.

EEngineer -> Old Microbiologist... , 28 July 2017 at 05:41 PM
And the bulk was staffed up with any college republican that could fog a mirror. Got to deal with a few of those while developing a bio-particle detector. Basic science seemed to be missing on their resumes. But Moore's law seemed to apply to everything!
Old Microbiologist -> EEngineer... , 29 July 2017 at 06:44 AM
But, they probably did have PHD's but ended up doing nothing later. I agree with you about that. The same things happened over at DTRA, where I have never seen such incompetence. I also ran into similar ignorance with DoS people involved in the BWPPP (counter proliferation program funded under the Nunn-Luger Act). They thought all the former Soviet field labs doing agricultural disease surveillance were bioweapons labs.

The labs were set up to monitor endemic zoonotic disease like anthrax and plague which are relatively common. For years they wanted to get their hands on the "weapon" strains and the local guys figured out pretty quickly how to game it for never ending funding on the promise the strains would be sent "real soon".

I can't blame them for that. But I can blame these "geniuses" managing these projects for being incompetent.

Ishmael Zechariah -> turcopolier ... , 28 July 2017 at 02:01 PM
Colonel,

I might be becoming a conspiracy nut in my old age. Could it be that this fellow was promoted and placed as part of an infiltration operation? There are so many claims on his vita which could have been verified with minimal effort. Were these not checked? Could it be that they were checked and the discrepancies were being used for control?

In a similar vein how can the entire US Senate minus 2 vote for a sanctions proposal which is patently and demonstrably based on false premises?

Ishmael Zechariah

Old Microbiologist -> Ishmael Zechariah... , 29 July 2017 at 06:45 AM
American policy in regards to everything is easily understood by one basic concept. Follow the money.
Babak Makkinejad -> Old Microbiologist... , 29 July 2017 at 08:07 PM
I do not credit that. On the whole US has gained nothing from Japan - except unemployment. And then there is the little matter of Afghanistan, for which, the money trail goes through her anf back in DC.
WG McCreedy , 28 July 2017 at 02:00 PM
https://www.linkedin.com/in/colonelderekharvey/
Tel -> WG McCreedy... , 29 July 2017 at 05:47 PM
http://www.cas.usf.edu/news/s/546

"He also has shown great courage personally, for example entering Fallujah at the height of the uprising there and spending the day and night talking with leaders in the insurgency."

That would have been early 2004, while Col Harvey was "Red Team" Chief.

Randy , 28 July 2017 at 02:05 PM
Legend in his own mind. How many more like him are influencing/making foreign policy decisions? Scary. Nice take down pl.
SmoothieX12 , 28 July 2017 at 02:06 PM
Farsi? How would that have happened?

When playing back-gammon as it is played in the region? I joke, of course. But I remember playing the game (known in the area as Nard(y)) All numbers (combinations) of dice were called out loud in Farsi. Everybody in Caucasus pretty much knew counting to six in Farsi plus some additional (proprietary) names of numbers' combinations. Sadly, I forgot that--I don't play backgammon in its "westernized" configuration--the board has to be done in a specific way. But, probably, would recall numbers and titles given couple of games with native speakers pretty fast.

Kooshy -> SmoothieX12 ... , 28 July 2017 at 05:15 PM
The Board must be of hard wood ( specific species) and the dice must be small ( like 1/4 in) made of tusk, so one can hear an specific sound of rolling dice. The board is called Takhteh ( board made of wood) Nard
SmoothieX12 -> Kooshy... , 28 July 2017 at 08:27 PM
It is also known as Shesh-Besh (the game--six-five) and every move of the essentially checker has to be loud and fixated in the own nest. Drinking tea from armuda glass is desirable;) You got it right about dice known as zary. It is a ritual of an incredible delight and power.

http://obruch.com.ua/sites/obruch.com.ua/files/khyqx_baku_hjmobt_rhunuq._kepmohu.gif

Eric Newhill -> Kooshy... , 29 July 2017 at 06:40 AM
Kooshy,

Brings back memories. The hard wood board inlaid with ivory and mother of pearl and the little ivory dice vigorously thrown and ricocheting wildly. The smacking of the chips on the table; even harder when you "hit" the opponent's piece or make a "dur" in a strategic slot.

We called the game "tobli", but we always counted in a mix of Persian, Arabic and a salting of Turkish. There were also proclamations that would be shouted; usually when misfortune befell one's opponent. "Gehleh"! (sometimes pronounced "Gallah") when his piece had been hit and then couldn't get back on the board.

6 and five was "shesh/besh". 4 and 2 was "juward/du", But 1 and 2 was "eekie beer", 1 and 1 was "hap yeck"......

It was said that the game of tobli would reveal a man's character and that it was a microcosm of life.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 28 July 2017 at 09:34 PM
I think the word for six is the same in both Russian and in Persian. The expression "losing at Love's Nard" is well-known in Persian. (In Love, one wins by losing; as I am sure you know.)
SmoothieX12 -> Babak Makkinejad... , 28 July 2017 at 09:54 PM
I think the word for six is the same in both Russian and in Persian.

It is Shest' in Russian and Shesh both in Farsi, Azeri and Turkic.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 29 July 2017 at 09:30 AM
Funny - "Shest" mean thumb in Persian. Or Sixty - depending on the accent of the local dialect.
The Beaver , 28 July 2017 at 02:20 PM
committed and visionary leaders such as Mrs. K.T. McFarland

Yep, Troia who went MIA since 1985 after marrying a rich banker and became more or less a socialite only to resurface in 2006.

Envoy Jason Greenblatt who couldn't do much last WE about the hot spot of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and Bibi had to remove his electronic gear to "control the Arab Muslims". Jared would have loved to accompany him on that school trip but he was busy on the Hill.

The Beaver , 28 July 2017 at 03:05 PM
This may be a good read:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/our-man-middle-east-confusing-worldview-trump-aide-derek-harvey

When it comes to Iran, Harvey has articulated a tough line, but there is a fair amount of bipartisan support for this in Washington. When he turns his attention to other issues, however, Harvey offers a curious set of dubious assertions and contradictory claims, wrapped up in a troubling lack of knowledge about the region for which he is now primarily responsible. Needless to say, this combination is bad for U.S.-Middle East policy.

MRW , 28 July 2017 at 03:20 PM
Hope someone at the White House reads this. It is delicious.
Lars -> MRW... , 28 July 2017 at 05:41 PM
Nobody in the White House will read this, or anything else. They are too busy watching TV. Of course, the old Greeks had a story about somebody who flew too close to the sun.
Emad , 28 July 2017 at 05:17 PM
Reminds of that other paragon of ME knowledge Larry Franklin.
Lemur , 28 July 2017 at 05:33 PM
Breaking: Trump's fired Priebus, hired John Kelly as Chief of Staff.

"My hunch is that Reince Priebus will be gone by the end of August along with Sean Spicer and most of their RNC team of White House leakers." ~ Conservative Treehouse, July 23rd

Sounds like Trump's trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored. If you don't get with the Trump program, you're put out to pasture.

Babak Makkinejad -> Lemur... , 28 July 2017 at 09:35 PM
Col. Lang had predicted this months ago.
turcopolier -> Babak Makkinejad... , 28 July 2017 at 09:50 PM
babak

Yes, it is typical of how the nouveau riche NY City people behave. The older the money, the more hidden the gutter snipe behavior. there will be more like this. pl

Lemur -> Lemur... , 29 July 2017 at 03:17 AM
Update: the blue ticks on twitter are reporting Trump 'sources' associated with Preibus are saying Trump is moving toward an independent whitehouse detached from the GOP.
Richardstevenhack -> Lemur... , 29 July 2017 at 07:56 PM
But not independent of the neocons...

In fact, if true, this looks like a "neocon coup". It was bad enough they had control of State and influence at the Pentagon during Bush, now it looks they have total control of the White House AND State and still influence in the Pentagon...

So we have Trump trying to use "snap inspections" to unravel the Iran Deal - which will lead inevitably to war - and at the same time threatening to attack North Korea again as well as fueling Cold War 2.0 with Russia with more sanctions.

This can only end well...not...

Fellow Traveler , 28 July 2017 at 05:37 PM
Reince Priebus out, another General in.

"WASHINGTON -- Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff who failed to impose order on a chaos-wracked West Wing, was pushed out on Friday after a stormy six-month tenure, and President Trump replaced him with John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security and retired four-star Marine genera"

LondonBob -> Fellow Traveler... , 29 July 2017 at 06:39 AM
In hindsight it was a big mistake for Trump to think he could work with the GOP establishment. Better to rely on business, the military and other outsiders for his staff.

Sessions to DHS and a new AG in? Given the suggestion of a new AG generates such hysteria it would be a wise move.

JMH , 28 July 2017 at 05:47 PM
Got to admire the defensive/defiant tone of the resignation letter, here's a thought: it was an honor and a privilege to serve, God bless America... IMO 'nuff said
Peter in Toronto , 28 July 2017 at 07:02 PM
How does does one receive neo-con patronage in the first place? Do you have to marry into the tribe? Seems like a profitable thing to do and it gets you into places well beyond any formal education or qualifications or merit, it seems. I have to look into this.
turcopolier , 28 July 2017 at 08:07 PM
Peter in Toronto. They have had an active recruitment program for at least fifty years. The Wohlstetters pitched me in my Pentagon offices. pl
Peter in Toronto -> turcopolier ... , 28 July 2017 at 10:28 PM
No kidding... Can I press you for an anecdote?
turcopolier -> Peter in Toronto... , 29 July 2017 at 07:36 AM
Peter in Toronto

As I said the Wohlstetters (Albert and Roberta) came to my office at the direction of "Paul" to explain to me the esoteric meaning of Plato's Republic and other texts. Roberta laid out a series of books on my coffee table, all written by their friends (Wizards of Armageddon). I argued with them about the meaning of several of Plato's dialogues and after a while she picked up her books and they left. I had failed the test. Ten years ago I gave a talk at the Miller Center at U Va and at the after event lunch a former colleage of theirs at the U. of Chicago said that they had been doing that there for a very long time. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 10:39 AM
Do you recall the esoteric meaning of the Republic that they mentioned?
LeaNder -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 11:19 AM
You are kidding? Aren't you? Plato's Republic? The assumed source of later Utopia thinkers? Random pick, without taking a closer look:
http://exploringutopia.weebly.com/utopian-origins.html
English Outsider -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 12:03 PM
Colonel - this particular neo-con strand seems to go back a long way. Googling Wohlstetter brought up this, a site unknown to me but which amplifies the Wiki entry:-

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Albert_Wohlstetter

"Wohlstetter is also said to have sent Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to work on the staff of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a conservative hawk committed to working on behalf of the US defense industry, and for Wolfowitz and Perle to intern for the Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy, a Cold War think tank co-founded by former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and former Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze.[28] This is also thought to be precursory moves to the formation of the "Team B" intelligence analysis team as Nitze used Wohlstetter's assertions in testimony to accuse Henry Kissinger and the CIA of dangerously underestimating the Soviet Union's military strength and its intentions. As Craig Unger put it:

"This was the beginning of a thirty-year fight against the national security apparatus in which the [neoconservatives] mastered the art of manipulating intelligence in order to implement hard-line, militaristic policies."[29]"

What your anecdote above illustrates is the evangelical zeal with which the neo-cons pushed their views and sought to convert. I had assumed that the neo-cons got out of the basement and into the front office because, figuratively speaking, the front office was empty. That is, that they came to dominate Foreign Policy thinking almost by default, simply because Foreign Policy was not a prime interest of the American voter and therefore could be captured by any strong interest group that happened to be around.

It seems there was more to it than that and that the neo-cons or their precursors actively laid siege to the front office over a long period.

Is this related to the influence exerted on the American intellectual and political scene by continental and in particular Eastern European emigre groups that brought with them the attitudes, and particularly the Russophobia, of their roots?

Such groups remain, as it were, frozen in time, not adapting to changing circumstances and attitudes in their home countries but retaining the old attitudes and approach unaltered.

We see this effect when looking at the Irish diaspora in Australia and the US in the nineteenth century. The historians give great weight to the effect of this diaspora. Without the support of these outside groups, and their rigid adherence to the hard line attitudes they had brought to their new country with them, the Irish revolution would have taken a different and possibly more fruitful course. That applies also to the influence emigre groups exert within the US itself. I believe Syrian emigres from the old Syrian regime were influential in Washington, and their adherence to the grievances and outlook they brought over exerted that influence in Washington out of proportion to their value as true indicators of the up to date circumstances in the ME.

The Ukrainian emigre groups exert a similar influence in Canada and Australia. Again, preserving unaltered the attitudes their forbears brought over with them, they push their host governments strongly to support the ultra-nationalist groups in their country of origin although (my opinion only, but there does seem to be some warrant for it) the average Ukrainian patriot had, before 2014, moved well away from the ultra-nationalism of the 1940's.

Such groups of emigres, emigre groups whose attitudes are frozen in time and not that well connected to current reality, could perhaps be termed "fossil groups". In Western countries, unacquainted with and usually uninterested in the contemporary political scene in the foreign countries those fossil groups originate from, they can exert a strong electoral and intellectual influence on the host country. The extremist always wins against the moderate when the moderate's not that bothered and the extremist is.

Is it going too far to say that the American Foreign Policy scene, never particularly of detailed interest to the voter because there was plenty to get on with just building up that huge American economy and dealing with domestic issues, has now been taken captive by those "fossil groups"?

And that the West as a whole, because of the predominance of the US in the West, is now similarly captive? If so the "lunatic juggernaut", as one can fairly term the West as a whole when one observes the catastrophic mistakes we in the West make in our Foreign Policy, is in truth being steered by groups who have little contact with current reality and dangerously little in common with the peoples of their host countries.

Ishmael Zechariah -> English Outsider ... , 29 July 2017 at 05:37 PM
English Outsider,
A nice link. Thank you.
AFAIK both Perle and Wolfowitz are zionist israel-firsters. Do you think the Wohlstetters and Strauss also belonged to this group?

Ishmael Zechariah

English Outsider -> Ishmael Zechariah... , 29 July 2017 at 08:52 PM

Ishmael Zechariah - I'm too far away to have any worthwhile feel for how ultra-Zionism got into its current position as a determining factor in American Foreign Policy, and by extension ours. I have, with some diffidence, maintained that the Scofield Bible has more clout than AIPAC in the United States but that belief was arrived at by reading accounts and examinations of the American fundamentalist scene and not from direct experience. In fact when I read the English correspondents on this site I'm chastened to realise how unaware I have been of various political cross currents in my own country, so I don't pretend to be able to accurately pin down the cross currents in yours.

The Colonel's Venn diagrams - intersecting interest groups - are, I am convinced, the best way of visualising the interplay of the various interest groups and ideological pressures that resulted in current American Foreign Policy. Ultra-Zionism got into the mix, that's for sure, but perhaps even those who observed the process at first hand would be hard put to identify exactly how. All most can do is see the results. And live them.

What is clear to any outside observer is how open the American political and intellectual scene is. An American today might feel hemmed in by PC and current dogma to an extent that would be incomprehensible to any American of the past, but to an outsider it seems a remarkable free and open-minded society in contrast to the more restricted and self-censoring political environment in Europe. That openness gives grounds for hope that it will be the Americans who will find the way out the the cul-de-sac the West is currently trapped in, but it is also a vulnerability. If good things might find a lodging in this relaxed and open culture so might bad and in my comment above I had hoped to look at how it was that America, that byword for confident progress, found itself harbouring some of the more regressive political tendencies that found their way from Old Europe. Harbouring them, and scarcely without noticing, allowing them to direct their fortunes and the fortunes of the West.

Eric Newhill -> English Outsider ... , 30 July 2017 at 10:15 AM
EO,
The adherents of the Scofield Bible are aligned with AIPAC. These Christians belief that in order for Christ to return, Israel must exist and the temple must be rebuilt. They want Christ to return and they want to facilitate the occurrence of the event. Thus they are 100% pro-Israel in a most Zionist fashion.
johnf -> English Outsider ... , 30 July 2017 at 02:59 AM
To your list of outsiders influencing American foreign policy I'd add the Rwandan Tutsis who, while their elite were in exile in New York and Canada in the 1970's and 80's, formed very close links with zionists and neo-conservatives. Their intelligence and brightness appealed, as well as, possibly, the murkier strains of Social Darwinism (a culture very much still alive in the Tutsi elite) since eugenicist theories have always defined them as "philo-semites", unlike the untermenschen Central African Hutu who make up the vast majority of the Rwanda's population).

The Tutsi elite's invasion of Rwanda under Paul Kagame was heavily financed by elements in The West (who also, unsurprisingly, had their eyes on the vast deposits of rare metals (especially for computers) in the neighbouring and highly unstable Congo).

The "Rwandan Genocide" which followed was used again and again as an excuse ("It Must Never Be Allowed To Happen Again!") for the Iraq and Libyan and Syrian interventions. But more sceptical voices are increasingly pointing out that Paul Kagame's troops were as much initially involved in massacring Hutus as Hutus were in massacring the rural Tutsis (who had little connection with the cosmopolitan Tutsi Elite), and that Kagame then used "The Genocide" as a repeated cover and excuse for barbaric invasions (fully supported by the West for both ideological and commercial reasons) of the Congo and the terrible slaughters and exploitations which took place (and continue to take place) there.

Only recently has the once lionized Kagame been condemned by the United Nations, despite fervent opposition to this by his powerful supporters in The West.

Gerard Prunier's magisterial "Africa's World War" covers this tragedy in great detail, and is in itself partly a "mea culpa" for his earlier "The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide" which he admits he wrote while bedazzled by Kagame.

Jose , 28 July 2017 at 11:05 PM
Col, he speaks elementary Farsi, so he is an Iranian menace expert.
Babak Makkinejad -> Jose... , 29 July 2017 at 09:31 AM
And I speak rudimentary Spanish and I am now the foremost expert on the politics of Spain as well as Hispano-american world.
sid_finster , 28 July 2017 at 11:32 PM
Col. Harvey's autobiography and it's improbable wanderings in exotic lands seeking hidden wisdom reminds me a lot of another charlatan who went far, namely, L.Ron Hubbard.
ambrit -> sid_finster... , 29 July 2017 at 09:59 AM
Oh good heavens. Is DH also an amoral libertine as well?
sid_finster -> ambrit... , 29 July 2017 at 06:57 PM
That I don't know, but the improbable, hell, impossible, tales of travel in the service of self-promotion remind me of The Commodore.
DH , 29 July 2017 at 12:02 AM
"President Donald Trump said his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military, announced via Twitter on Wednesday morning, came "after consultation with my generals and military experts." It's becoming clearer and clearer that he was lying.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis was on vacation when the decision was announced, and privately opposed the move. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Dunford, said Thursday that the military wouldn't implement the ban absent a formal, non-tweeted order from the commander in chief.

And then there were the remarkable remarks that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley made during a luncheon at the National Press Club.

During the lunch, Milley told reporters that he found out about the ban "the same way everybody else did -- on the news." At the time, he was holding a glass of wine:"

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/27/16051892/trump-transgender-ban-army-chief-staff

Lemur -> DH... , 29 July 2017 at 10:24 AM
its amusing how Trump makes a mockery of all the Washington rituals. I think that's what drives the media nuts - he bypasses the established conventions of 'how things are done.'
dilbert dogbert -> Lemur... , 30 July 2017 at 11:00 AM
Yes he bypasses established conventions, but, will that tactic get things done? Example: Obamacare Repeal.
confusedponderer -> DH... , 29 July 2017 at 10:50 AM
DH,
that Milney didn't spill the wine deserves praise. Wine is there to be drunken, or to be used in cooking. I understand the decision on transgender to some point.

Still, what wonders me is that that the pentagon learns from such non-trivialities from the press and not from heir CiC. It suggests to me serious dysfunction in communication from the Whitehouse to the rest of the world. And it's not just that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sean-spicer-hides-bushes-donald-trump-fires-james-comey-white-house-fbi-avoid-press-questions-a7727611.html

Sean 'The Notable' Spicer was a joke of a gvt speaker who, at least once, preferred to hide behind bushes to avoid talking to press. For one, Spicer should have known that speaking to the press was his darn job. Alas. As the saying goes, shit happens. Good for the US that that clown is out.

But who did Trump hire as a replacement? Scaramucchi. That man is, from what I read him say, hardly an improvement over Spicer. IMO the crazy nut man was simply replaced by a nutty crazy boy.

IMO Stephen Colbert had it quite right when he said it: Now that the mute man Sean Spicer is out as the non-speaking press speaker, who is now not-answering anybody's, my, yours and the presses load of questions? Scaramucci perhaps? Answer: Well, nobody, it seems.

So, in lack of communication from their CiC the pentagon is expected to ... hallucinate? sleep? dream? Perhaps look at Trump's tweets?

Well, maybe they should. Maybe Trump will one days tweet really secret and very important things to them that they may miss, like:

;( Nook NoKo ;O

Amusingly, as you posted in your VOX link DH, Trump said he had consulted the military on his transgender ban, but according to the military he didn't. Oh well. In Trumps own terms: Soooo sad ...

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 11:13 AM
Babak

It was straight Leo Strauss/neocon stuff. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

basically, according to this view the text has hidden meanings that are the opposite of the obvious. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 12:58 PM
Thanks.
Truly deplorable didplay of parochial ignorance. They could have travelled to India or to Iran and seen and experienced for themselves what millenia of tyranny and lie creates.
LeaNder -> Babak Makkinejad... , 30 July 2017 at 08:08 AM
Babak,

Really fast look, I am aware of the larger Straussiophobia. With all due respect to Shadia Drury. Haven't read her books, admittedly.

By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration

Stopped here. Felt from the first time I stumbled across it, was even slightly curious, far too easy. Should I go back and study it more closely?

Babak: Truly deplorable display of parochial ignorance. They could have traveled to India or to Iran and seen and experienced for themselves what millennia of tyranny and lie creates.

Yes, I agree that's part of the puzzle. I may have struggled with something comparable over here not too long ago. At least in essence it feels. But, it feels there are many comparable "theys" around.

But while I admittedly read almost every book on the Neocons I could lay may hands post 9/11. The Straussian angle felt a bit hyped to me. No doubt, I may be wrong. I surely didn't look into the assumed occult aspect of matters. To the extend I looked at Strauss' study of Machiavelli it didn't feel that striking. Yes, no doubt tried to offer 'Il principe' deceptive means in trying to get his attention.

Machiavelli's intention in curing the attention of his master clearly to teach him the best ways of deception. But: Is there a way to understand, or better still to prove, how Strauss' interpretation of Machiavelli may have gotten into the mind of e.g. Wolfowitz? Which in return explains why matters unfolded the way they did?

Why do we need to select Leo Strauss as the ultimate representative of Machiavelli in our times? Never mind, the long reception history of Il Principe/The Prince? The neocons as his only true descendants? Well, how would their biographies compare to Machiavelli's attempt to please the Prince? Or their attempts at getting the attention of the respective "cherry blossom king" (Tyler's coinage for Trump, here used for whatever president of the US more generally)?

Meaning: Before I stumbled across the debate I assumed that Machiavelli was more generally a standard text in politics and for politicians in the West. (no political scientist, no political philosopher, admittedly).

*******

Well yes, there was this biographical detail linking Strauss to Carl Schmitt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Encounters_with_Schmitt_and_Koj.C3.A8ve

And yes, without any doubt one might be able to draw a direct line from Carl Schmitt's Political Theocracy to Israel, as at least one Israeli scholar has done.

But does that help us to solve the larger riddle of US politics? Apart from telling us that you may be born into time and space beyond your own choices, as Leo Strauss was, and then have to deal with it? Maybe even trying to understand with whatever means?

*******

Personal note: Saw your and Kooshy's response. Thanks to both of you.

Babak Makkinejad -> LeaNder... , 30 July 2017 at 11:07 AM
Thank you for your comments. The Protestant Christians in US and in UK - as a big part of Electorate - are largely responsible for enabling the neocons. The West has bought and paid for A RELIGIOUS indulgence, called Israel and is unwilling to either admit or accept that it has led to a religious war. I guess the West expects to prevail.
confusedponderer , 29 July 2017 at 11:16 AM
I just read that Trump has fired his weirdly named staff chief Rience Priebus, by Twitter.

Usually, a firing of a staff chief is a personal thing, and the relationship is personal. So, unlike what could be seen in Trump's tv shows, a firing usually - it is after all about ending a contract - goes with a letter, in a bad case perhaps with a deliberate humiliation as in the case of Comey, or a personal talk - but firing by TWITTER, so to speak, en passant ? Good grief.

That mess probably not just coincides with the appearance of the new man in the Whitehouse - Scaramucchi.

After insulting Priebus, who got fired, Sacramucchi isn't done yet. After insulting Priebus, he has started to also insult Bannon recently - will he be twittered away, too? The show hasn't ended et.

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 05:45 PM
IZ

They are or were all neocon Israel firsters. pl

turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 05:49 PM
tel

I am told that this account is self-generated. Now think about the Falluja story. The people he would have visited were dedicated jihadis. They routinely cut peoples' heads off or crucify them for not sharing their opinion of the nature of Islam. They hung the burned and mutilated corpses of a number of American off a bridge in town.

Do you really think Derek Harvey who speaks no Arabic went to have a listening opportunity with them? If you think that you are very gullible. was he decorated for this feat of daring do? If so, I want to see the citation. It took a brigade sized force to break into the town. Was that because the command would not listen to Derek Harvey? pl

Tel -> turcopolier ... , 29 July 2017 at 07:08 PM
Are you calling CNN fake news?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/opinions/steve-bannon-white-house-national-security-bergen/

"Serving under McMaster is a triumvirate of well-seasoned Middle East hands. The senior director at the NSC for the Middle East is retired Col. Derek Harvey, an Arabic-speaking intelligence officer with a Ph.D. who served as the head of the US military cell examining the insurgency in Iraq in 2003."

In terms of empiricism... I would think that discovering whether someone can speak a given language should be very easy to test.

Babak Makkinejad -> Tel... , 29 July 2017 at 07:50 PM
I have a real Ph.D. and have been waiting for the President, any President, to offer me a lucrative government job as a Hispano-American expert which my smattering of Spanish and my ownership of bilingual poetry books surely entitle.
Thomas -> Tel... , 30 July 2017 at 02:01 PM
"Are you calling CNN fake news?" The more apt description would be Fraudulent news.
turcopolier , 29 July 2017 at 07:27 PM
tel

Derek Harvey does not speak Arabic except for "hello," "goodbye," "thank you" and the like. Send him around and I will give him a language test. Nor does Harvey have a Ph. D. I have consulted peers of his who were in Iraq when he was supposedly playing Lawrence of Arabia in Falluja. They universally believe this to have been BS. He is a wonderfully skilled self-promoter. pl

Larry Kart , 30 July 2017 at 12:08 PM
And what of the man that McMaster seemingly can't get rid of -- the still firmly in place, and high in the NSA hierarchy, Ezra Cohen-Watnick?
Hubert Horan , 30 July 2017 at 02:47 PM
A couple book recommendations for anyone who wants historical background on the links between Strauss and the neocons. First point is that conservatives spent decades of efforts trying to build a "political theory/philosophy" that would support/justify their political/ideological objectives. Nash's "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America 1945-1970" is widely recognized by folks of various political persuasions as a solid work of history. Nash describes how this pursuit of a theoretical grounding for "conservatism" developed, and mentions how Strauss developed a wide following among these movement conservatives, although because the story ends in the 70s it doesn't describe how Strauss later became a subject of adoration among neocons.

Although the points seem self-evident, Nash (and similar writers) never explicitly explain why conservatives ever thought their political movement could have a rigorous philosophical basis, given the yawning gap between "philosophy" and short-term partisan politics, given the variety of incompatible and changing political objectives of conservatives, and given that no one in the center of left side of the political spectrum (hard-core 1930's Marxists excepted) wasted time worrying about whether their political agenda was strongly linked to an underlying, immutable "theory".

Gottfried's "Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America" (2012) describes some of the post-1980 "cult of Strauss" among neocons, with competing schools based at Claremont (led by Harry Jaffa) and Chicago (led by Alan Bloom). Godfried (I think reasonably) defends Strauss against certain academic attempts (including Drury) to tie Strauss to views of Carl Schmidt that he didn't share, and explains Strauss' Israel-first Zionism as simply typical of Jewish intellectuals who had fled the Nazis.

Gottfried fails to make the points as explicitly as his evidence allows, but many of the nasty stuff attributed to Strauss are the fault of his disciples, who simplified/misrepresented abstruse philosophical points to fit the neocon agenda of the 1990s and beyond.

[Jul 30, 2017] The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting a war in the Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

DannyMarcus > , July 30, 2017 at 12:49 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences.

I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."

The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting a war in the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings. Engineering a war with Iran would fit the bill perfectly.

With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.

[Jul 30, 2017] Mainstream News Manipulation of US Public

McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win. One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Anna C 1 month ago

LEGAL, WIKIMEDIA V. NSA Discussing fake news and the NSA lawsuit at Yale | https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/

Tracy Spose 1 month ago

Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.

The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.

[Jul 30, 2017] Rumors have started about a 2nd Special Prosecutor to investigate the DNC hack

At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

RobinG , July 30, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT

AT LAST .

HOUSE (20 MOC's signed) CALL TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON & DNC

US House Judiciary Committee requests DoJ appoint second Special Prosecutor (PDF)

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/072717_HJC-Letter-to-AG-DAG.pdf

RobinG , July 30, 2017 at 7:41 am GMT

@Art Trump should FIGHT!

In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."

Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.

Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small nothings.

Peace --- Art

... ... ...

Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]

Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4q-sHJCGCk

LEE STRANAHAN: ALEX JONES INFOWARS

[Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

Highly recommended!
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
Apr 2, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Greg Rhodes 3 months ago

I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
Robert Eargle 2 months ago

McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.

Manley Nelson 2 months ago

The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.

Rodger Asai 3 months ago

Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence. Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based on Actual Fact

The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

KELLI2L2 3 months ago

As it turned out Jill Stein was a bad choice too... Recount debacle.

midnighfairy 1 month ago

I want Hilary to pay for her lies

[Jul 29, 2017] Did Russiagate begin as a Clinton campaign conspiracy? New forensic research suggests it by Alexander Mercouris

Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded, falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer, and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | theduran.com

Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published another in its highly enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.

... ... ...

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .

.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer 2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.

"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."

. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.

In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.

Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way

The Time Sequence

  • June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
  • June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
  • June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..

What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election.

This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.

Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?

As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that the Russians were responsible.

Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer, and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""

This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in effect a fraud.

Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.

The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack. If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that the evidence that there was is concocted.

Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.

What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers. Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.

Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.

At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.

If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.

That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis.

Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum which points in that direction.

[Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

Highly recommended!
The problem is that that appointing a Special Prosecutor was a special operation directed against Trump. So Session behavior was the behavior of enabler of this special operation. Whether he did so because he was afraid of of being tarred and feathered with Russian connections himself, or he simply behayed Trump is unknown. But reclusing himself in such a critical for Trump Presidency matter is probably betrayal in any case.
Notable quotes:
"... The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation. ..."
"... For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. ..."
"... Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation. ..."
"... I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean. ..."
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

different clue -> Kooshy... Kooshy, 25 July 2017 at 08:52 PM

The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation.

Trump would then want his new Attorney General to fire Mueller and fire whomever Mueller reports to. I can't think of any other reason why Trump would want Sessions removed.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. The problem here is that Trump has such a trashy personality and such all-around trashy behavior that pure spite and irritation for no good reason at all is just as good a motive for Trump to want Sessions gone.

Sessions won't want to go. He has a legal-ideological mission at Justice. He won't resign. He will tough it out in place as long as he can.

Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation.

bks -> different clue... 25 July 2017 at 09:52 PM

Perhaps Trump asked sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

different clue -> bks ... 26 July 2017 at 12:23 AM

bks,

That could be, but we will never know as long as Sessions remains AG. Because Sessions will remain focused on the DoJ mission, and not get involved in a spat-fight with Trump.

Also, if indeed Trump did ask Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions declined to do so; perhaps Sessions has given Trump reason to understand that firing Sessions would play right into the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative which the Remove Trump forces are engineering.

And perhaps Sessions will have given Trump reason to understand further that even having given Sessions the reQUEST to fire Mueller could in itself further the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative. But in the event of imparting that further level of understanding unto the Trumpster, Sessions will then have followed up by reassuring Trump that as long as Trump does not fire Sessions, no one need ever know that Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller. In the event of all these dominoes having fallen "just so" in a private discussion between these two men, Sessions will have reassured Trump that "no one need ever know about the request" . . . for as long as Sessions remains AG without being fired.

This is all pure speculation following on from your speculative question. We of the Great Uncleared will never know what has or hasn't been said behind the locked doors of steel and oak.

Kooshy -> different clue...25 July 2017 at 11:29 PM

I agree with the first part of your comment, but IMO the reason he wants Muller (or any Special investigator) removed is that he don't want his past business dealing and tax returns to be investigated, IMO they are scared of old days business deals, write off etc. and i think that's what Demos and Borg wants to pull out in a legal public way, and not the Russian connection. IMO the real sewer lies in past business and tax deals.

ked -> Kooshy... 26 July 2017 at 02:05 PM

If the "real sewer lies in past business and tax deals" and those happen to be penetrated by "the Russian connection", what then?

LondonBob -> Kooshy... 27 July 2017 at 05:42 AM

I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean.

Sessions offered his resignation a while back after he recused himself, Trump refused. Spicer went quickly and quietly, so would Sessions if he wanted him gone.

VietnamVet said... 25 July 2017 at 06:34 PM

PT

This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.

It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet. Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:

"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of."

Augustin L said... 25 July 2017 at 09:41 PM

John Helmer on Jared Kushner's testinomonial to stupidity and unfitness. http://johnhelmer.net/jared-kushners-testimonial-to-stupidity-and-unfitness-american-and-russian/

[Jul 28, 2017] Imperial Power Centers Divisions, Indecisions and Civil War by James Petras

Highly recommended!
the key players in the coup against Trump are neocons, which have foreign support. Leaks and based on them "investigations" along with Russiagate witch hunt proved to be very powerful instruments of the neocons in the deep state, who seeks to regain the lost power. In other words this is a coup for absolute power of militarists over the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay, we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations of influence. ..."
"... In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However, below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power. ..."
"... With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power centers. ..."
"... Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change. ..."
"... The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors. ..."
"... The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies. ..."
"... The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington ..."
"... From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime. ..."
"... The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party, which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster. ..."
"... From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority, even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions. ..."
"... The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster. ..."
"... The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency. Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful. ..."
"... On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge. ..."
Jul 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

55 Comments p>

Introduction

One of the most important outcomes of the Trump Presidency are the revelations describing the complex competing forces and relations engaged in retaining and expanding US global power ( 'the empire' ).

The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay, we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations of influence.

The Making of Empire: Countervailing Forces

While 'the empire' may describe the general notion that all pursue a common general goal of dominating and exploiting targeted countries, regions, markets, resources and labor, the dynamics (the timing and focus of action) are determined by countervailing forces.

In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However, below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power.

Who Rules 'the Empire'

The executive power is exercised via specialized departments or secretariats – Treasury, Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State), Interior, and the various security services. In most instances there is greater or lesser inter-agency competition over budgets, policy and access to the chief executive and leading decision makers.

In times of crises, when the ruling executive leadership is called into question, this vertical hierarchy crumbles. The question arises of who will rule and dictate imperial policy?

With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.

Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.

The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.

The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies.

The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington

From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'.

The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime.

Presidential imperial authority has split into fragments of influence, among the legislative, Pentagon and security apparatus.

Presidential power depends on the Cabinet and its apparatus in a ruthless fight over imperial power, polarizing the entire political system.

The President Counter-Attacks

The Trump regime has many strategic enemies and few powerful supporters. His advisers are under attack: Some have been ousted, others are under investigation and face subpoenas for hysterical McCarthyite hearings and still others may be loyal but are incompetent and outclassed. His Cabinet appointees have attempted to follow the President's stated agenda, including the repeal of Obama's disastrous 'Affordable Care Act' and the rollback of federal regulatory systems, with little success, despite the fact that this agenda has strong backing from the Wall Street bankers and 'Big Pharma'.

The President's Napoleonic pretensions have been systematically undermined by continuous disparagement from the mass media and the absence of plebian support after the election.

The President lacks a mass media base of support and has to resort to the Internet and personal messages to the public, which are immediately savaged by the mass media.

The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party, which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster.

From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority, even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions.

The September Showdown

The big test of power will be focused on the raising of the public debt ceiling and the continued funding of the entire federal government. Without agreement there will be a massive governmental shutdown – a kind of 'general strike' paralyzing essential domestic and foreign programs – including the funding of Medicare, the payment of Social Security pensions and the salaries of millions of government and Armed Forces employees.

The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster.

The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency. Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful.

Both sides will blame each other for the mounting breakdown. Temporary Treasury expedients will not save the situation. The mass media will go into a hysterical mode, from political criticism to demanding open regime change. The Presidential regime may assume dictatorial powers in order 'to save the country'.

Congressional moderates will demand a temporary solution: A week-to-week trickle of federal spending. However, the coup-makers and the 'Bonapartists' will block any 'rotten compromise'. The military will be mobilized along with the entire security and judicial apparatus to dictate the outcome.

Civil society organization will appeal to the emerging power configurations to defend their special interests. Discharged public and private employees will march as pensioners and schoolteachers go without funding. Lobbyists, ranging from oil and gas interests to defenders of Israel, will each demand their priority treatment.

The power configuration will flex their muscles, while the foundations of Congressional, Judicial and Presidential institutions will shake and shutter.

On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge.

The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to lay claims on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with Russia, Iran and China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule.

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

[Jul 28, 2017] Countdown To War On Venezuela

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. just ordered the relatives of its embassy employees out of the country. Such is only done when imminent action is expected. ..."
"... Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire. ..."
"... If we compare and contrast Venezuela and Russia, however, it seems clear that the difference in their economic situation is largely due to the fact that Russia got rid of oligarchs with ties to foreign interests (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky etc.) and made sure the remaining ones couldn't interfere in domestic politics; Venezuela didn't manage to do this. ..."
"... In addition, Venezuela over-relied on high oil prices to finance social programs and economic growth, so when the oil price collapsed, so did their domestic economy; Russia was much smarter about this and has managed to successfully weather the oil price collapse; this is also because Venezuela has "extra-heavy" oil (full of sulfur, acids, salts, heavy metals, etc., requiring much higher processing costs to convert to usable fuel), so it was hit hard by the fall in oil prices. Failure to diversify the economy, in other words. Putin, in contrast, constantly talks about the need for Russia to diversify and continue technological advancement. ..."
"... People is starving. The government have admit it. There is a severe shortage of medicines, kids are dying because of that. Child mortality have increased a lot, sadly. Poverty index has also increased. ..."
"... Telesur on the food crisis - yes it exists Due to fixed prices that make it possible to reexport with a profit. ..."
"... Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest." ..."
"... Wow. you surely must be missing the fact that people are being killed on the streets, dying from a lack of medicine, there is little food to be had. Lots of people leaving the country to be refuges in Brazil and Colombia ..."
"... Venezuela is going through a coup, simple as that, and Maduro and Chavez are/were no heroes. The fact that other countries tried to mess with them in the past does not change that. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

On Sunday Venezuela will hold an general election of participants of a constitutional assembly. Half of the representatives will be elected from regular electoral districts. The other half will be elected from and by eight special constituencies like "workers", "farmers", "employers", etc. The second part may be unusual but is no less democratic than the U.S. system which gives voters in rural states more weight than city dwellers.

The new assembly will formulate changes to the current constitution. Those changes will be decided on in another general vote. It is likely that the outcome will reinforce the favorite policies of a great majority of the people and of the social-democratic government under President Manduro.

The more wealthy part of the population as well as the foreign lobbies and governments have tried to prevent or sabotage the upcoming election. The U.S. has used various economic pressure points against the Venezuelan government including economic warfare with ever increasing sanctions . The opposition has held violent street rallies, attacked government institutions and supporters and called for general strikes.

But the NYT propaganda pictures of opposition rallies in the capitol Caracas show only small crowds of dozens to a few hundred of often violent youth. The opposition calls for general strikes have had little resonance as even the feverish anti-Maduro Washington Post has to concede :

In the wealthier eastern half of the city, most businesses closed to support the strike called by the opposition, which is boycotting the vote and calling for its cancellation.

The main highways of the capital city were largely closed down in the early morning , and reports surfaced of national police lobbing tear gas at strikers in the center. In the poorer neighborhoods in the west, the strike appeared less pronounced , with more businesses open and more people on the streets.

(Translation of the WaPo propagandese: "Not even the rich opposition neighborhoods of the city closed down completely. Attempts by the opposition to block central roads were prevented by the police. In the poorer parts of the city the opposition call for a strike was simply ignored.") The opposition is only active within the richer strata of the population and only in a few big cities. The poor rural areas have gained under the social-democratic governments and continue to favor it.

In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times the "regime change" lobby of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) laid out the steps towards an upcoming war in Venezuela:

Since the plebiscite, Venezuela's opposition has taken steps toward establishing a parallel government. This might remain a symbolic initiative. But if the opposition continues down this road, it will soon be looking for international recognition and funding, and will at least implicitly be asserting the parallel government's claim to the legitimate monopoly on the use of force. After that it will seek what every government wants: weapons to defend itself. If it succeeds, Venezuela could plunge into a civil war that will make the current conflict seem like high school fisticuffs.

(The WOLA was also involved in Hillary Clinton's coup in Honduras.)

The CIA is quite open about the plans:

In one of the clearest clues yet about Washington's latest meddling in the politics of Latin America, CIA director Mike Pompeo said he was "hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and we the CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there".

He added: "I was just down in Mexico City and in Bogota a week before last talking about this very issue, trying to help them understand the things they might do so that they can get a better outcome for their part of the world and our part of the world."

The piece notes:

In Venezuela, [the U.S. government] has sought to weaken the elected governments of both Mr Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, who was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup. Some of the effort has been in distributing funds to opposition groups through organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, while some has been in the form of simple propaganda.

In May 2016 unidentified US officials told reporters in a background briefing that Venezuela was descending into a deepening "crisis" that could end in violence.

We can conclude that the upcoming violence in Venezuela is not a spontaneous action of the opposition but the implementation of a plan that has been around since at least May 2016. It is likely to follow the color revolution by force script the U.S. developed and implemented in several countries over the last decade. Weapon supply and mercenary support for the opposition will come in from and through the neighboring countries the CIA head visited.

The vote to the constitutional assembly will proceed as planned. The opposition will attempt to sabotage it or, if that fails, proceed with violence. Weapons and tactical advice and support have likely already been provided through CIA channels.

The Venezuelan government is supported by a far larger constituency than the U.S. aligned right-wing opposition. The military has shown no sign of disloyalty to the government. Unless there is some unforeseeable event any attempt to overthrow the government will fail.

The U.S. can further hurt Venezuela by closing down oil imports from the country. But this will likely increase U.S. gas prices. It would create a some short term inconvenience for Venezuela, but oil is fungible and other customers will be available.

To overthrow the Venezuelan government has been tried since the first election of a somewhat socialist government in 1999. The U.S. instigated coup in 2002 failed when the people and the military stood up against the blatant interference. The "regime change" methods have since changed with the added support of a militant "democratic opposition" fed from the outside. The use of that tool had negative outcomes in Libya and Ukraine and it failed in Syria. I am confident that the government of Venezuela has analyzed those cases and prepared its own plans to counter a similar attempt.

The U.S. just ordered the relatives of its embassy employees out of the country. Such is only done when imminent action is expected.

Posted by b on July 28, 2017 at 05:52 AM | Permalink

Bebert | Jul 28, 2017 6:13:37 AM | 1

let's pray for the Venezuelan people. be strong against CIA proxy ops!

El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:20:54 AM | 2
b. The problem with your narrative are the parlamentary elections of 2015 where the government decidedly lost .

To go to civil war from there shows what is at stake in an oil rich country and how irresponsible the players are.

nmb | Jul 28, 2017 6:58:15 AM | 3
What really happened in Venezuela
hemendik | Jul 28, 2017 7:01:44 AM | 4
http://misionverdad.com/mv-in-english
Peter AU 1 | Jul 28, 2017 7:21:34 AM | 6
I noticed the an article in Reuters on US evacuating embassy families and took it to mean a US coup was underway. Hopefully Venezuela has some countermeasures in place.
V. Arnold | Jul 28, 2017 7:38:57 AM | 7
b, I don't see any mention of Russia's involvement in Venezuela. It's my understanding Russia has some arm's agreement with the government. Any information on that?
E | Jul 28, 2017 7:59:26 AM | 8
RT has an interview with Nicolas Maduro here: https://www.rt.com/shows/rt-interview/397785-nicolas-maduro-interview-rt/

The sound is annoying, but it is worth a listen. Maduro also makes the Ukraine-case.

Hal C | Jul 28, 2017 8:09:11 AM | 9
"The Russian state-owned Rosneft holds a 49.9 percent stake in the Venezuelan-owned, U.S.-based refiner Citgo [...] If Rosneft decides to up that to 51 then all of a sudden Citgo because subject to Russian sanctions."
link
somebody | Jul 28, 2017 8:28:30 AM | 10
3

Yep, the problem Venezuela's Minister of Economic Planning describes is that they fund subsistence goods and fix prices. So people smuggle stuff out of the country and make money on the difference to the market price.

They can't just print money and expect to get Dollar for that. That is not economic war. You seem to be able to make counterfeit dollars from Venezuelan currency though - that is the only explanation for the smuggling of currency out of the country.

It is futile to try an economy like that in a country like Venezuela. It kind of worked in the Soviet block with a tightly controlled iron curtain. People reverted a lot to exchanging goods directly there, as the planned distribution did not work. The only socialism that works is to hand the people the money to afford the market price (and to tax it from people who own more than they can spend).

Venezuela's countryside will be ok via subsistence farming. The problems in the cities must be huge.

xor | Jul 28, 2017 8:35:17 AM | 11
A couple of months ago that Brazilian far right parasite called Temer invited the US military to his country that borders Venezuela to the north. Brazil Invites US to Use Amazon Military Base
A P | Jul 28, 2017 9:06:31 AM | 12
The Venezuelan gov't probably still has a large portion of 100,000 aces up their sleeves. 100,000 Kalashnikovs sold to Venezuela in the late 2000's and a licensed factory to produce more near completion. And a significant number of Russian helicopters and other arms. I think the US-backed "opposition" knows an attempted Maidan-redux will end with a lot of dead rich Venezuelan collaborators. The gov't police are containing the "youth gangs", which will not provide the type of large scale "protester" cover the US/NATO "special forces" snipers used to kill both police and protesters in Kiev. The US/Zionist regime-change script is well known to average Venezuelans, tough to recruit dupes to march/riot on behalf of US-paid agitators.

Whoever the Venezuelan Porkyshenko and "our man Yats" are, they better look to their own safety rather than thinking the US will be able (or willing) to protect them when the SHTF. The US "diplomatic" (read CIA/black-ops command) corps pulling out means the "opposition" leaders are on their own. Funny thing about bully-cowards the US backs... they all all tough guys as long as there is a lot of dupes between them and the gunfire, but are sniveling weaklings when confronted without their CIA-paid thugs.

ger | Jul 28, 2017 9:35:19 AM | 13
Drat, if I did not know better, I would concluded the Americans are interfering in another sovereign country ... as usual. Coming soon to Venezuela, an American ass kissing oligarch stealing natural resources?

Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 9:48:53 AM | 14
12

agree

Venezuela signs mining deal with China

A First: China and Russia Will Jointly Host International Army Games

China, Russia, Angola, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela will participate the competition.

Russia will bring its own military equipment, but the other countries will use Chinese military equipment.

New York Times: Wider U.S. Sanctions on Venezuela Risk Biting Both Countries

And this here is a very hostile article but tells you something of the likelihood Venezuelan armed forces will defect

Maduro, like Chavez before him, depends on thousands of Cuban military and intelligence officials who are in Venezuela to prop up his regime. Many of those Cubans are embedded in the Venezuelan military, working as snitches and hampering chances the armed forces could splinter and support the opposition's efforts to end Maduro's dictatorship.

The Sino Venezuelan strategic partnership

There is more.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 10:26:49 AM | 15
Most people are ignorant about the opposition:

The Violent Past Of Leopoldo Lopez, Poster Boy For The Venezuelan Opposition

In 2002, while still serving as mayor, López participated directly in the U.S.-backed coup attempt aimed at removing democratically elected President Hugo Chávez from power. López specifically participated in the illegal detention of then-Minister of the Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, as well as violent attacks against Caracas' Cuban Embassy that saw a group of protesters try to violently enter the building. When they could not force their entry, they cut off water and electricity to the building and smashed windows and vehicles.

Chávez pardoned López for his role in the coup in 2007 and López was only barred from holding political office from 2008 to 2014 following the revelation of his past corrupt dealings at PDVSA, as well as the discovery of his misuse of public funds while mayor.

If Lopez did this in the United States or any European country do you think he would be out of jail?

Anonymous | Jul 28, 2017 10:45:47 AM | 16
ger @13

The US is getting its ass handed to it in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, the Philippines, China, North Korea. It is acting just like its owner -- whenever Israel is frustrated it takes out its frustrations on the poor Gazans. The US takes it out on some usually hapless and defenseless country.

nonsense factory | Jul 28, 2017 11:02:53 AM | 17
@14 somebody,

I'm don't know a whole lot about the current situation in Venezuela, but I do know that the sources you reference are not going to provide independent reliable information about the sitution there; what you're linking to looks more like propaganda for domestic consumption.

If we compare and contrast Venezuela and Russia, however, it seems clear that the difference in their economic situation is largely due to the fact that Russia got rid of oligarchs with ties to foreign interests (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky etc.) and made sure the remaining ones couldn't interfere in domestic politics; Venezuela didn't manage to do this.

In addition, Venezuela over-relied on high oil prices to finance social programs and economic growth, so when the oil price collapsed, so did their domestic economy; Russia was much smarter about this and has managed to successfully weather the oil price collapse; this is also because Venezuela has "extra-heavy" oil (full of sulfur, acids, salts, heavy metals, etc., requiring much higher processing costs to convert to usable fuel), so it was hit hard by the fall in oil prices. Failure to diversify the economy, in other words. Putin, in contrast, constantly talks about the need for Russia to diversify and continue technological advancement.

The US State Department / CIA game is pretty obvious, their goal is to work with the Venezuelan plutocratic families to overthrow the government, after which the state-owned oil companies will be privatized and a controlling share >51% will be offered to Exxon or Chevron, and they'll then be called a model of humanitarian and democratic values by the State Department (now conveniently headed by Exxon's agent, Rex Tillerson). Same old repetitive bullshit, in other words. If you want more details, see Steve Coll, author also of Ghost Wars (on Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvPobwco-AE

This kind of crap doesn't benefit the average American citizen in any way; all the proceeds go to Exxon's executives and their billionaire shareholders. All the money wasted on these neoliberal projects would be far better spent building out our domestic infrastructure at home.

OJS | Jul 28, 2017 11:06:14 AM | 18
b
Excellent analysis. I'm up to date another regime changes in Venezuela as I was in Ukraine (2013).

Abby Martin was in Venezuela last week interviewed the oppositions (TRNN and Telesur). Russia and China
seem to be the only major players supporting Mr Maduro for now. Thanks

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/

virgile | Jul 28, 2017 11:19:52 AM | 19
After the failure of the 'regime change' in Syria, the CIA and the neo-cons are itching to get one in Venezuela where Russia can't intervene easily. Hopefully it will fail again.
DW | Jul 28, 2017 11:28:53 AM | 20
I heard Iran and Hizbullah have a huge underground presence in Venezuela helping Maduro. Just kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that in the WaPo and NYT.
somebody | Jul 28, 2017 11:30:14 AM | 21
17) None of the information is independent, reliable. All claims are based on reality, the difference is the evaluation.

You can't compare a huge country like Russia, with a new post-soviet oligarchy, and a small country like Venezuela with heavy dependence on the United States (and new dependence on China) with an old traditional oligarchy.

But whatever, Venezuela is in a constitutional crisis, a parliament opposed to the government. To solve that on the street means civil war.

falcemartello | Jul 28, 2017 11:33:21 AM | 22
Just another day at the office. Meanwhile Wasserman -Schultz and the DNC get exposed with more shenanigans with the Pakaistani IT guys . Further more to find out that Wasserman -Shchultz brother is overlooking the case. Talk about an inside job.
The Congress has just extended its act of war on Russia,Iran and North Korea but hell to quote Hitler in Drag (Hillary) What difference does it make.
How western history repeats itself as we enter this age of absurdity. We are entering a period very similar to the build up of WW1 . Is humanity that blinded?
This is all going to end very badly. Will Europe finally come out of its vassal like slumber to these vile anglo-zionist whom have poisoned western civilisation from the assassination of Lincoln and McKinley to the greatest theft of them all the 10nth crusade on the ME.
Are we all that blind. Look at Temur in Brazil knee deep in government fraud and Rouseff gets impeached on trumped up accusations along with Lulu. Are we that ignorant and self absorbed that we the sheeple not c the writing on the wall.
Chile all over again this time with boo Kissinger to lead the way.
How Ironic that Kissinger and Obama both recipients of the Nobel peace prize never get challenged on their crimes against humanity.
Sorry no its not related to the Venezuela imbroglio but they are connected to this evil BY DECEPTOION YOU MAY WAGE WAR just to coin the famous moto of the Rothschild secret service.
nonsense factory | Jul 28, 2017 11:39:56 AM | 23
@21 somebody. Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest.

And this is the problem with US foreign policy these days - rather than being more competitive than China or anyone else, rather than saying we'll give you a better deal if you do business with us, it's always "do business with us on our terms or we'll stage a coup and plunge your country into civil war." You know this perfectly well, as do all the owners of the sources you reference, like the NYTimes, (notable cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with all the BS about WMDs), etc.

It's called the Tonya Harding model of economic competition - rather than being the best, the goal is to kneecap anyone who gets in the way. Second rate, isn't it?

Inkan1969 | Jul 28, 2017 11:48:18 AM | 24
"Democratic opposition" is impossible under the rules defined by this website. Any attempt to oppose the policy of a favored government is inherently branded "violent" or "terrorist".
nonsense factory | Jul 28, 2017 12:01:34 PM | 25
@24 Inkan1969

Sure, taking a helicopter and strafing government buildings as a means of "political opposition", that's not violent, that's not terrorism. Pfffffttttt... cn you imagine what people would be saying if a Muslim member of some domestic U.S. police agency did that???? FFS. Did the US State Department condemn that action? Not at all.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 12:20:30 PM | 26
20 :-)) of course. Venezuela is part of the resistance axis .
wendy davis | Jul 28, 2017 12:22:00 PM | 27
thanks for keeping up with this, b. may i add that the misionverdad link at hemendik 4 is key to the emergency speed at which this is progressing now. this has both the misionverdad.com english exposé, but also news of an even larger Exxon 'discovery' field off the coast of VZ that's claimed by guyana. as far as i can make out, the UN case hasn't been settled yet, but you know that Tillerson's attorneys, nikki haley, et.al., w/ a bit of help from all the compromised NGOs will get it done.

will the military keep supporting the chavistas? so far they have, and have even written open letters to Trump, Pompeo, with their collective middle fingers extended.

https://cafe-babylon.net/2017/07/27/exxon-is-already-occupying-venezuela/

okie farmer | Jul 28, 2017 12:32:42 PM | 28
Maduro Calls on Trump to 'Stop Aggression Towards Venezuela'
Maduro mused that he'd cherish the opportunity to "extend (Trump) a handshake and to tell him that we're in the 21st century."
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro reiterated that his country wants to live in peace during an interview with RT Spanish Wednesday.
Faced with a new round of U.S. sanctions against 13 Venezuelan senior officials, Maduro urged U.S. President Donald Trump to exercise reason and halt his administration's interventionist policy in Venezuela.
"As president, I appeal to him, to President Donald Trump: Stop aggression towards Venezuela. Venezuela is a fundamental basis of stability in the whole Caribbean Basin," Maduro said.
Contemplating an eventual meeting with Trump, Maduro mused that he'd cherish the opportunity to "extend (Trump) a handshake and to tell him that we're in the 21st century." He added that U.S. officials should "dismiss the Monroe Doctrine" because times have changed and these times required an acceptance of "diversity and new, more advanced relationships."
Venezuela's head of state noted that U.S. foreign affairs strategists should deliberate with greater rationale and end their aggressive stance because "Venezuela wants to live in peace, it wants to live quietly."
He emphasized, however, that if the situation deteriorates beyond the harmonious confines of dialogue and peace, something that the people of Venezuela desperately want, "the Bolivarian Revolution will have to take up arms and, once again, we'll be fighting under the same flag."
Confronted by an emboldened opposition which has been documented to work closely with sanctions-wielding Washington, Maduro recalled that he'd spent almost the entire month of May "seeking direct dialogue" with them in order for Venezuelan society as a whole to "become members of the Constituent Assembly, but they refused."
Adding that his political adversaries have ventured to "the radical right," skirting even traditional allies "who voted for them," Maduro admitted that his greatest error as president was to "underestimate the opposition, their capacity to inflict damage, their malice, their capacity for violence."
Maduro also announced that Venezuela will sign new gas and oil agreements with Russia, as he emphasized the importance of maintaining good economic partnerships with major powers.
"For the second half of the year, important documents will be signed to expand bilateral investments between Russian oil and gas companies and our PDVSA," Maduro told Russia Today.
The announcement comes as the United States increasingly threatens and enacts sanctions against Venezuela. On Wednesday the U.S. Treasury Department made good on Trump threats to impose sanctions on the country if the National Constituent Assembly vote went forward on Sunday, July 30.
Maduro confirmed that despite U.S. attempts to rattle Venezuela's economy via an "indirect blockade," the country is equipped to meet all challenges. The end game of such obstruction, as was attempted in 2015 and 2016, Maduro argued, is to force Venezuela's economy to default.
Despite these attempts, he said that the country has always "paid its bills, met its obligations." In the event of a complete cutoff between Caracas and Washington, Maduro assured that "the roads leading to the west, to the south, and to the east, fortunately, will stay open for Venezuela."
Maduro explained that it is essential to maintain good relations and strong partnerships with major global economic powers like Russia and China, and that he was thankful for the solidarity expressed to Venezuela by these nations.
The president said that Russian-Venezuelan relations are "advancing at a good pace," particularly in the realm of oil, considering the significant investments that Russia has in the Orinoco oil fields.
In addition to oil trade, the two countries share a broad range of mutual cooperation encompassing over 200 agreements in fields ranging from medicine to tourism, agriculture, and mining.
james | Jul 28, 2017 12:50:38 PM | 29
thanks b.. i hope you are wrong, but 60 years of usa bullshit intervention suggests you are right! these fuckers just can't stop it.. all in the name of exxon or whatever other kleptomaniac they have yanking their strings...

many good and informative comments... thanks everyone..

i agree with @17/23 nonsense factory viewpoint.

@ 24 Inkan1969... huh? are you trying to suggest the venezuala opposition is the new improved version of the '''moderate rebels''' the usa and it's buddies support in syria? give it up.. this colour revolution, moderate rebel, opposition crap is stale..

psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 12:52:01 PM | 30
@ okie farmer with the report from Maduro

Thank you for that. His words are such a contrast in style with those coming from the petulant man-child the US currently calls president. I wish more Americans could see their country for the latest projection of private finance empire that it really is.

Thanks b for the depth and breadth of the journalism that you share.......I am happy and impressed that you don't just report on Syria as an earlier commenter would have you do......

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 1:06:32 PM | 31
Venezuelan here!

Hope Maduro leave the country soon or least let us to have the peace he can't provide. It is a nightmare in here, and most of it has been caused by economic policies applied by him and Hugo Chávez that basically destroyed the country economy, its productivity, while being reliant on high oil prices that didn't last enough to make a good transition towards communism but instead created the perfect storm to let people know that we don't want to elect another socialist president never again in our life.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."-JFK

Thank you for posting this article!

AriusArmenian | Jul 28, 2017 1:20:06 PM | 32
Can't the US stay out of any other people's business?
Humanity must sanction the US before it brings on even greater disasters.
I wish millions of Americans would march on Washington to end its nonsense.
psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 1:24:26 PM | 33
@ Enrique Mendoza who claims to live in Venezuelan

Thank you for your comment. Please share with us your social and economic background.......America is still propped up by those that think they stand to "lose" with socialistic economies....are you one of those, is my question?

i believe that the perfect storm that you are referring to was caused by the world of global private finance and not through the fault of Chavez or Maduro. And that perfect storm is now being writ large all over the world.....we will see how it plays out.

Mike Maloney | Jul 28, 2017 1:34:37 PM | 34
Good, somewhat long, article on Venezuela is Greg Grandin's " Down from the Mountain ." Grandin argues that the working class will remain loyal to the government:
Marches and countermarches are usually a signal that history is on the move, that change, of some kind, is coming. But Venezuela is in stasis. Negotiations between the government and its opponents are announced, and then called off. The Vatican says it will mediate and the Organisation of American states says it will intervene, but nothing happens. Both sides, it seems, are waiting, tremulously, for the barrios populares,filled with working-class people, to render their verdict. Anti-government forces have called on them to join their protests, and have even encouraged them to loot and riot. These calls, for the most part, have gone unanswered. As the historian Alejandro Velasco has pointed out, Chávez acknowledged these people on a primal level, recognising them as citizens with legitimate demands and fundamental rights. In exchange, they turned out again and again on the streets and at the polls to defend the Bolivarian revolution. In contrast, anti-government forces want them as shock troops to break the deadlock. Maduro may have lost their goodwill, but social gains won in the heyday of Chavismo – schools, food distribution centres, health clinics, daycare – are still functioning, however stressed, in these neighbourhoods, and while their residents may not be actively supporting the government, they aren't yet ready to overthrow it. Meanwhile Chávez, in death as in life, continues to transcend the polarisation. According to a recent poll, 79 per cent picked him as the best president the country has ever had. A slightly smaller but still large majority say he was Venezuela's most democratic and efficient leader.
Pnyx | Jul 28, 2017 1:51:06 PM | 35
I strongly hope a war can be avoided in Venezuela, but if not it will be as difficult for the u.s. to ram through a regime change as in Syria. If they insist this will be another humilation for them.
Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 1:54:48 PM | 36
@psychohistorian

I'm recently graduate myself in high school but I'll start studies in the School of Economy in here, therefore I've been studying the economy of Venezuela by at least 4 years with the resources I have (internet mostly), its history and also political science to understand the crisis in my own country, knowing that I'm prepare myself to improve my country in the future.

I believe every country always must a balance between socialism economic policies and capitalism. The thing is that every economy in the world does have capitalism as its main socioeconomic system where they use "socialist" policies published as state welfare only to improve what capitalism can't. In other words, these countries use welfare policies to improve their capitalist system, totally avoiding the philosophic and behavioral implications of having a socialist economy; they don't try to abolish the state to implement better healthcare, or abolishing the money to create foods programs.

Only Cuba and Venezuela don't have capitalist economies because the economic system was replaced by socialism.

Chávez and Maduro caused this nightmare. Both worked to destroy capitalism, they then had to afront the consequences of that; the difficulty to have commercial relations with other countries that aren't socialist at all. This wasn't a problem for Chávez at the beginning because Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves, I'd say oil market is the biggest in the world, and he used strategically to make the entire country economy reliant on oil while Venezuela oil passed to be controlled by the executive power when he nationalized the oil industry in 2003-2004. He used this economic power to replace non oil productivity with imports which caused less productivity in Venezuela, lack of investment in our industries.

This lack of investment now has its roots for the crisis happening now. Hugo Chávez and Maduro got into massive debt Venezuela can't pay back because oil income isn't enough. Imports decreased massively and there wasn't any replacement due lack of internal productivity. There you have the food and medicine shortage.

What was Maduro and Chávez problem's? They never foreseen the oil glut. They thought China economy would grow indefintly and they also thought that the US could never increase its oil productivity for energy independence. They also failed at replacing peacefully the production method because the economic crisis started before they could achieve the transition towards communism.

Bart | Jul 28, 2017 1:56:03 PM | 37
Of course the irony-adverse WaPo ignores the fact that we are again "meddling in a foreign election"
Alaric | Jul 28, 2017 2:00:47 PM | 38
Re: Enrique Mendoza

"It is a nightmare in here, and most of it has been caused by economic policies applied by him and Hugo Chávez that basically destroyed the country economy"

This is nonsense. I have family in Venezuela and I've traveled there a bit. Venezuela has always been a disaster and the country has been overly reliant on oil for a looooong time. What changed is that the small, formerly privileged middle class that is primarily composed of white people living in the nicer parts of Caracas are now suffering whereas they used to live quite well. Some of the suffering is real due shortages of certain things (corn flower, etc) but a lot more is a rollback of privilege - " oh no we can't travel to the US to shop or travel to Europe." Still more of the suffering is imaginary and simply a regurgitation of right wing Venezuelan media. The Gabby Martin Telesur video touches on this but speak with Venezuelans of the middle class and you'll hear the exact same script, a small amount of which is true but most can be debunked easily.

Desertrat | Jul 28, 2017 2:28:17 PM | 39
It's silly and unnecessary that there be any CIA involvement. Chavez began the downward path toward economic failure and Maduro threw gasoline on the ensuing fire.

When your outgo exceeds your income, economic failure is inevitable.

Like Brook Benton sang, "It's Just A Matter Of Time".

psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 2:43:07 PM | 40
@ Desertrat who seems to have strayed into the wrong bar

Thanks for stopping by.

I don't think you are going to find too many patrons at this bar who believe the song you are singing......don't let them doors hit you on the way out.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 2:46:19 PM | 41
@Alaric "Venezuela has always been a disaster and the country has been overly reliant on oil for a looooong time"


Venezuela has never been in the edge of a humanitarian crisis. You can read the government responses to the crisis, they have admited several times that food shortage is real and that medicine shortage is a real danger affecting even the highest govenrment officials and their family members, like the ex wife of Hugo Chávez who has needed to ask for donations for medicines that can't be found in any part of Venezuela.

You can watch all you want the telesurtv video, but that doesn't change nothing because you can talk on internet with any venezuelan and you will know the truth.

I'd suggest you to stop spreading misinformation and government propaganda if you really want to have a discussion about Venezuela.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 2:53:04 PM | 42
It sounds like the empire is going to war with itself .
t is not just Venezuela's political stability that is at stake either. The Russian state-owned Rosneft holds a 49.9 percent stake in the Venezuelan-owned, U.S.-based refiner Citgo following a $1.5 billion loan from the Russian company. Some lawmakers say they are concerned that Russia is in a position to own a substantial stake of the U.S.-based company.

On Thursday, Treasury officials fined ExxonMobil $2 million for signing business agreements with Igor Sechin, the chief executive of Rosneft. Exxon responded by filing a legal complaint against the Treasury Department.

"This is more than just the U.S. and Venezuela," said Juan Gonzalez, a deputy assistant secretary of state under Obama. "Let says PDVSA is in a situation where it defaults, which would affect Citgo. Then Rosneft has a 49 percent stake in Citgo. If Rosneft decides to up that to 51 then all of a sudden Citgo because subject to Russian sanctions."

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 28, 2017 3:11:02 PM | 43
Thanks, b.
This latest Yankee Regime-Change Plot in Venezuela comes complete with the tr-r-aditional pre R-G contradictions which, as usual, the disgusting Jew-controlled Western MSM (led, predictably, by the Jew York Times (and Zio-Jazeera!!!)) is 'mysteriously' reluctant to explore, or even mention.

Venezuelan Democracy is either on its last legs, or it's not.
-If it is on its last legs then why not just wait for the Govt to collapse and let Venezuelans solve the problem? Why does AmeriKKKa feel obliged to take sides and interfere? How does political unrest in Venezuela suddenly become AmeriKKKa's problem? And why promote civil war as the only possible outcome/solution?

Funnily enough, BBC wasn't reporting on Venezuela today. They're using infantile MI6 NK-hater/liar Rupert Wingfield-Hayes to promote the Alternative/Fake News story from AmeriKKKa about North Korea's latest missile test on Friday "thought to have landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone" and blaming China. So NK missiles are shaping up to be the MSM's Talking Point to get Venezuela out of the Headlines when Christian Colonialism needs some time out to fine-tune the Venezuela horseshit it feeds to the MSM.
Funnilier, the early BBC report about NK missiles began with "AmeriKKKa has detected a missile launch.." with some half-assed SK & Japan confirmation drivel; but a later report begins "SK & Japan have detected a missile launch.."

Apologies for the long meandering comment but the Western MSM should be Crucified for its toxic lack of curiosity.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 3:18:52 PM | 44
@Enrique Mendoza

If you just graduated from high school you are probably too young to know the darker side of how the world works. I highly recommend you read John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".

WorldBLee | Jul 28, 2017 3:19:57 PM | 45
#31: If you define doubling GDP and reducing extreme poverty by over 2/3 as destroying the economy then yes, Chavez and Maduro are 100% to blame for 'destroying' the Venezuelan economy.

This claim of destroying the economy is frequently used by US media hacks and the opposition in Venezuela, but the numbers are completely against you.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 3:30:13 PM | 46
@45

Or that Venezuela was ranked the happiest country in South America in 2013:

You Probably Didn't Hear that Venezuela Was Again Ranked the Happiest Country in South America

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 3:41:51 PM | 47
45 Venezuelan GDP reflects the oil price - that is the problem .

GDP per capita is still quite good compared to other Latin American countries, but people must feel things are getting worse.

psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 3:45:17 PM | 48
@Enrique Mendoza

I would suggest you read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to get a glimpse of how the global money folk have R2Ped most of South America.

You need to consider your values around private ownership of property, inheritance, public commons and other concepts. I encourage you to keep clear what is concept (all those "...ism"s) and what is real (private ownership of global finance) Good luck!

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 3:46:51 PM | 49
@44

You are probably too ignorant about Venezuela.


____________


#45: GDP per capital has decreased to levels as in 1960, Venezuela Central Bank figures show.

Denying the crisis won't work to argue Venezuela economy is doing well. What you say may be true UNTIL 2012 or possibly until 2013, but times have changed. Poverty index has increased a lot since then because everyone is reliant on government aids, and now the government is cutting budgets everywhere to pay back foreign debt instead of applying default on such debt to avoid cutting budgets. It isn't that difficult to see the obvious crisis.


____________

@46

Yeah, you said it. In 2013

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 3:54:16 PM | 50
@psychohistorian

Can you bring a updated table showing 2016 GDP decreasement? It is estimated that Venezuela's economy fall 19 percent in 2016. Your graphic only show information until 2015.

Alaric | Jul 28, 2017 4:45:43 PM | 51
Re: Enrique Mendoza

"Venezuela has never been in the edge of a humanitarian crisis. "

Nor is it now. Again, this is right wing propaganda. More Venezuelans than ever are eating despite shortages in some staples sometimes in some parts. Your perspective is entirely that of the smallish middle and smaller upper class in Venezuelans. People are starving yet restaurants are open in the chic parts of Venezuela? Oh sure.

Look: I don't necessarily agree with every decision made by the chavistas and I agree that mistakes were made in regards to foreign currency availability and even price controls and in creating a more hostile environment to businesses but most of these actions were attempts to deal with problems some of which do look like economic warfare to me. The market share concentration in certain consumer products (corn flour) segments (see Empresas Polar) is ideal for economic warfare.

Venezuela has long been a net importer of goods and that dependency has grown for 50 years, long before Chavez. Control of dollars is why the Chavistas have been able to control inflation on average better than their predecessors but yes it's still high. Venezuela is a small economy which sells a lot of oil in dollars. Converting said revenues to bolivares creates inflation. The country's GDP has been overly reliant on oil for long before Chavez. The steep decline in oil prices is due to economic warfare against Russia mainly by Saudi/america and friends. Problems water flow of Dams that produce power? Chavez' fault..nah

Venezuela has lots of structural problems which it long had but the only humanitarian crisis is the one being created by the right wing protesters

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 4:51:52 PM | 52
@Enrique Mendoza
You are probably too ignorant about Venezuela.

You might be right, I don't follow South America very closely. But I know enough about empire and propaganda to sniff out bullshit when I see it. And based on what you have posted, it's not like you are arguing from a position of knowledge.

There is no data for 2014, but in 2015 they were second, fifth in 2016, and last in 2017. Yet in 2017 they still ranked higher than some European countries. In 2011 they were ranked 9th in the world. My Venezuelan friends, like yourself, don't seem to like it when I mention these figures.

If you want to know a contributor to the decline, and if you are not afraid of information that challenges your narrative, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or "The Shock Doctrine" mentioned by psychohistorian.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 4:57:20 PM | 53
@47

The Happiness Index doesn't take GDP into account, but I get your point. Here is how it's calculated:

How is the Happy Planet Index calculated?

Alaric | Jul 28, 2017 4:57:44 PM | 54
Oil prices are down 50% on average compared to prices in the Chavez era, at least last I looked. Therefore, Venezuelas GDP has contracted and the government has less money and fewer foreign reserves. Last I read the oil sector was 1/3 of GDP. In boom years I recall it being circa 3/4 of GDP. This
is economic warfare, pure and simple.

Venezuela has suffered every time oil prices have fallen and that includes during the 80s when the CIA/ZUSA used oil as a weapon to destroy the USSR via Saudi and the gulf monarchs.

PS: please see Yemen, Libya or Syria to see a real humanitarian crisis.

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 28, 2017 5:01:58 PM | 55
Venezuelan here!
...
Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 1:06:32 PM | 31 + + +

How does Venality make you Venezuelan?
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
If you really believe it will make things better, please put our fears to rest by listing the anticipated improvements?

Nick | Jul 28, 2017 5:15:40 PM | 56
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"

said the counter-revolutionary, terrorist-supporting hypocrite....speaking of freedom whilst actively backing tyranny and bloodshed all over the place.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:23:27 PM | 57
@Alaric "Nor is it now. More Venezuelans than ever are eating despite shortages in some staples sometimes in some parts. Your perspective is entirely that of the smallish middle and smaller upper class in Venezuelans. People are starving yet restaurants are open in the chic parts of Venezuela? Oh sure"

Yeah, you can see restaurants are open JUST in chic parts of Venezuela, while in your video you mentioned, they only manage to cover ONLY some parts of Caracas, and only some stores. The GOVERNMENT itself have admited the food shortage, that's why they need to distribute bags of food street by street in every town of Venezuela, because reality is that you can't buy food in the stores because there is none. I have myself doing lines for hours to buy bread that barely is produced to supply the needs of some portion of the inhabitants doing the same line I'm doing; some of them aren't even able to buy food because it runs out before the line is finished.

Again: You can watch all you want the telesurtv video, but that doesn't change nothing because you can talk on internet with any venezuelan and you will know the truth.

People is starving. The government have admit it. There is a severe shortage of medicines, kids are dying because of that. Child mortality have increased a lot, sadly. Poverty index has also increased.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:47:35 PM | 58
@Tobin Paz
But I know enough about empire and propaganda to sniff out bullshit when I see it

Yet, your own source state that Venezuela is indeed in crisis, but then I ask, why is such crisis?

I do know that oil prices have decreased along with Venezuela oil production, that Venezuela productivity has also decreased, that economic policies applied by Maduro and Hugo Chávez have created a nocive business environment that both of them didn't knew how to replace to make a successful transition towards communism. It isn't hard to understand. Even the most leftiest followers of Chávez have admited the crisis in Venezuela, some of them arguing economic warfare, others arguing poor management of the economy blaming Maduro for the crisis, but I think the last one is the most certain to be happening in here. You don't even know the contributors of this crisis.

I've already posted some information you can check by yourself, you will realize better how Venezuela's economy became this disaster.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:53:33 PM | 59
@54
This is economic warfare, pure and simple.

How come other oil producers countries haven't suffered like Venezuela?

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:57:21 PM | 60
@55
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?

Well, I know that Maduro will keep paying them money from bonds debt Venezuela acquired during Hugo Chávez era, instead of going to default and protect the people, how other countries have already done in history. It jus contradictory, defend Maduro and attack the fascist in Amerikkka

Hope Maduro leave and another revolutionary leader comes in to solve this crisis once for all, instead of making it worse.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:58:43 PM | 61
@Nick
said the counter-revolutionary, terrorist-supporting hypocrite....speaking of freedom whilst actively backing tyranny and bloodshed all over the place.

He was right!

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:26:00 PM | 62
60

Statistics are amazing stuff - Venezuela debt to GDP

It is pretty low, much lower than Germany's

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:39:28 PM | 63
Telesur on the food crisis - yes it exists Due to fixed prices that make it possible to reexport with a profit.
ben | Jul 28, 2017 6:48:37 PM | 64
nf @ 23 said:"@21 somebody. Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest."

ger @ 13: "Drat, if I did not know better, I would concluded the Americans are interfering in another sovereign country ... as usual. Coming soon to Venezuela, an American ass kissing oligarch stealing natural resources? Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire. "

Worth repeating thanks. Both statements are relevant and truthful based on the empire's historical facts.

Gee, here come the trolls...

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:48:58 PM | 65
New York Times - Venezuelan import fraud

More financial fraud with Venezuela

ben | Jul 28, 2017 6:57:32 PM | 66
@ 65: Good sources, taken from a source that told all the American people Iraq was a real and present threat to world peace. Seriously?
somebody | Jul 28, 2017 7:09:52 PM | 67
66

In this case the New York Times says the same that the Venezuelan government says - that they are cheated.

As long as it is Venezuelans fighting each other it is civil war - that is the definition of it.

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 28, 2017 7:14:36 PM | 68
@55
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
...
Hope Maduro leave and another revolutionary leader comes in to solve this crisis once for all, instead of making it worse.
Posted by: Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:57:21 PM | 60

Spare me the rhetoric and drivel. I posted my #55 because you were beginning to sound like a visionless (Neoliberal) twerp.

"Hope Maduro leave..." is a miserable substitute for a National Recovery plan. I asked you a question and you're deliberately evading it.

Here it is again... Please put our fears to rest by listing the anticipated improvements? Until you answer, I'm winning the bet with myself that Enrique, would be utterly clueless when asked to articulate a positive vision for Venezuela's post-Maduro future.

Ike | Jul 28, 2017 8:04:57 PM | 69
@54 enrique mendoza

"How come other oil producers countries haven't suffered like Venezuela?"

Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Libya. They have all suffered from the curse of being rich in oil. The ones that haven't suffered, like Scotland and Norway are peopled by people of European ancestry and therefore off limits to the predatory USA , Saudi Arabia is suffering except for a wealthy elite and is probably the model the USA has in mind for Venezuela and Russia is strong enough to resist.

To all you people who hold up the marvels of capitalism. How come any country experimenting with socialism must be destroyed? The answer is really that capitalists want a free hand to pillage any developing countries economy

Alves | Jul 28, 2017 8:47:38 PM | 70
Wow. you surely must be missing the fact that people are being killed on the streets, dying from a lack of medicine, there is little food to be had. Lots of people leaving the country to be refuges in Brazil and Colombia.

Venezuela is going through a coup, simple as that, and Maduro and Chavez are/were no heroes. The fact that other countries tried to mess with them in the past does not change that.

james | Jul 28, 2017 9:21:48 PM | 71
The next thing ya know i will be reading that the butcher/tyrant maduro is murdering/starving his own people thanks the Venezuelan regime... the usa is going to or already are sending money to support the '''moderate rebels''' and on and on as the stomach turns.. i learned everything i know from the western msm, and a few stooges hanging out in an internet they claimed was located on the streets of caracas..

[Jul 28, 2017] Is Trump Entering a Kill Box

Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this. ..."
"... Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com
Diversity Heretic , July 28, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences. I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."

jacques sheete > , July 28, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

Reports of his frustration and rage suggest that he knows he has been maneuvered, partly by his own mistakes, into a kill box from which there may be no bloodless exit.

He asked for it so he could play tough guy on the world stage. Only a fool, (especially at his age), would actually want the job, so I hope he doesn't expect any sort of pity party.

Drain the swamp? We should've flushed the bif.

Johnny Smoggins > , July 28, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT

When dealing with the left, you can never apologize and never back down. Double down and punch back twice as hard. Anyone on the alt right could have told Trump this.

Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this.

Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price.

[Jul 28, 2017] To survive Trump will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people.

Notable quotes:
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet 25 July 2017 at 06:34 PM

PT

This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.

It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.

Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:

"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of."

[Jul 28, 2017] Jonathan Freedland s Trump Assassination Fantasy

Notable quotes:
"... There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers. ..."
"... I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

Jonathan Freedland's Trump Assassination Fantasy Andrew Joyce • July 25, 2017 • 1,200 Words • 42 Comments • Reply

Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as " a kind of triumph ," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian , while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements of the organized Jewish community.

Until recently, Freedland's rantings have been predictable. In Freedland's caricature-like portrayals, Trump emerges as a shameless, dictator-like figure who "respects no limits on his lust for power." Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of phrase, Freedland writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United States -- a document he sees as guaranteeing a multicultural state -- and his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted "a dangerous man" like Trump to assume office: "Trump is testing my admiration for that document -- testing it, perhaps, to destruction." Freedland has lamented that democracy in America "now stands naked -- and vulnerable."

Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle. W hile he rarely, if ever, mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian 's mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly less circumspect. In March, for example, he wrote in the JC that Trump "is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition."

Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not mention Jews or antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump "has no instinctive sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation of antisemitism has to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for speaking to and about Jews in a way that thrills antisemites." More embarrassingly for Freedland, he was one of the most vicious and persistent critics of Trump's assertion that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were probably made by Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had written:

Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these incidents at face value, they should consider that "sometimes it's the reverse, to make people -- or to make others -- look bad." Trump reportedly used the word "reverse" two or three times. What can this mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump? The notion of "false flag" attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a classic antisemitic trope: that anti-Jewish attacks are invented by cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.

How unfortunate for Freedland that this 'classic antisemitic trope' was later very soundly confirmed.

Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Dan Brown's thriller formula, and the syllable similarity in the two names shouldn't be considered accidental. In these novels, one can discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out personal fantasies. For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious thriller which derives its subject matter from Jewish folklore and has "a faction of the Christian Church" in the 'bad guy' role. The book was later followed by The Final Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy about a group of so-called "Holocaust survivors" who set out to assassinate former National Socialists.

To Kill The President , Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning. In the 'feminist' plot of To Kill the President , a female White House aide (and "avowed liberal") uncovers a conspiracy to murder a recently elected populist president who unexpectedly won an election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being careless with her email service. The President, described as a "cheat and bigot," offends the political and media establishments with "the tweets, the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted aggression." One scene includes the President grabbing a female assistant by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to launch missiles at China and North Korea.

Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without fear of a libel suit.

Freedland's portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel's President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette dancing to the tune of a "ruthless chief strategist" with an Irish name -- in this instance Bannon becomes Crawford 'Mac' McNamara. McNamara/Bannon saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to women and acting every inch the alpha male. The Bannon caricature presented by Freedland has been likened to a "middle aged rock star." One senses that Freedland is made deeply uneasy by Bannon's opaque role within the White House administration, as well as his perceived masculinity -- not to mention his opposition to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes. Much could be read into the fact that Freedland offers no fictional portrayal of Jared Kushner.

The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right here in black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist conduct and rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation with the idea of political assassination. Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland's colleagues at the Guardian , writes at the end of his review of the book: "Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the plot." This is a book that, ultimately, get its "thrills" from the prospect of the murder of Donald Trump.

The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation and co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

NoseytheDuke > , July 27, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers.

Carlton Meyer > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

Allow me to kickstart this as a JKF thread. From my blog:

Apr 6, 2014 – More Proof

I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot.

Carlton Meyer > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

And this allows me to link the most interesting video on youtube. Did James Files kill JFK? From my blog:

Jul 10, 2016 – James Files Killed JFK?

Youtube has amazing stuff, like James Files explaining how he killed JFK. This is a long interview but very detailed and believable. The first question that arises is why this guy finally talked. This is answered in this short video that you should watch first.

James Files may be phony, but he is a former CIA/US Army Special Ops guy, a known gangster, and if he is a fraud, he is first rate actor with great knowledge about the underworld who spent years preparing for this interview. I'm not sure what to think about his story, but he is an interesting and likable guy!

There are websites that attempt to dismiss Files, and even one dedicated to discrediting him: James Files Fraud. But one must ask who has the time and motivation to devote a website just to counter a youtube interview? Our CIA has thousands of people employed in counter-intelligence. They have the time, resources and media contacts to refute "conspiracy theorists" like 9-11 and JFK. This includes full time "floggers" commenting on websites and maintaining the "truth" at Wikipedia.

The Files interview is very interesting and I highly recommend watching it all, before it disappears. I recall watching a youtube interview with his prison warden that has disappeared. The warden summoned Files to his office to find out why he refused to see prominent visitors. He became convinced of Files' detailed account of shooting JFK, and was angered to learn that FBI agents had managed to interview Files in his prison without his knowledge.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 27, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT

Just like retired boxer Mike Tyson was a sort of poster boy for racism, Freedland is sort of a poster boy for anti-Semitism. He gives Nazi sympathisers the chance to say that perhaps the fuhrer wasn't totally wrong.

Wally > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

Revealing, Jonathan Freedland supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

"Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not mention Jews or antisemitism."

Jonathan Freedland is the very essence of those that promote fraud for profit.

... ... ...

jilles dykstra > , July 27, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT

Kennedy was murdered two weeks after he threatened Israel not to give them weapons any more if they continued developing the atom bomb. What's new ?

Randal > , July 27, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle.

The above article can usefully be read in conjunction with the following Occidental Observer piece published on Unz.com a couple of months ago, in the runup to the recent General Election:

Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think in Britain's Hostile Elite

Here is an article written for the Jewish Chronicle by Daniel Finkelstein, a strongly identified Jew high in the ruling Conservative party:

Corbyn must lose -- for our sake [i.e., for the readers of the Jewish Chronicle]

The Alarmist > , July 27, 2017 at 9:07 am GMT

They did it to W as well look at it as putting the R in taRget, because there are rarely Ds in their sites in any sales volume or venue or media that matters.

TelfoedJohn > , July 27, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT

Freedland has written endlessly about how Israel needs to be supported as an independent homeland for the Jewish people. You can't even buy land if you are not Jewish in Israel.

But in the UK, he regards the independence arising from Brexit, and any lessening of immigration, as complete disasters. What would he feel if only Christians could be citizens and buy land in the UK?

Bille ones > , July 27, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT

Under a Clinton regime he would be just one more of the hundred plus dead.

annamaria > , July 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke True. Guardian has become the lowest of the presstitutes.

As for the ethnicity-minding Jonathan Freedland, "a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," it should be stickered to him every day that the supposedly super-moral state of Israel has not taken a single Syrian refugee fleeing the death and destruction of the ziocons' design. " every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees Except Israel. Even a symbolic government proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped." https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/

How have many Syrian Anne Franks have been refused to come to Israel by the Israeli supremacists or were murdered by the Israel-friendly "moderate fighters" of ISIS/Al Qaeda variety?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/alliance-of-convenience-israel-supports-syrias-isis-terror-group/5587203

"Since the start of the conflict, Israel bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts with certain opposition groups. On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid."

utu > , July 27, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer How do you call the mental disorder when you make false claims that you were part of something big including being an assassin?

DaveE > , July 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal Yeah a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with a big push from outside forces . like relentless never-ending propaganda from slimeballs like Freedland. That was the author's point.

The simple, direct yet elegant style of Mr. Joyce should be studied by a few more Unz commenters.

Che Guava > , July 27, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT

Andrew,

The Guardian is the disgusting institution, it runs on a massive bequest.

One can be sure that some Soros foundation will step in when it is running out. They are sharing common goals.

Unbelievably, they had two articles of interest last week, one by the vain Hadley Freeman, an interview with her co-ethnics or co-religionists, depending on the day, it is seeming, with the Goldman family, of the other victim of wrongful death at the hands of OJ. I would recommending it for your reading. I am sure that it is easy to find. I think that the Goldman family is making big profits from OJ, but he was a creep and the cause of two wrongful deaths, so am thinking he is deserving it.

The other was about the experience of Yazidi women under IS. Full of the occasional sentence about how bad the Syrian govt. and Assad are, which I see is a lie, I have read real testimonials from real British people, not wealthy, of how kind Assad was in his opthalmolagy practice.

That was also worth reading, despite the clear propaganda parts. I am forgetting the name of the writer.

Really, the Guardian is typified by its pnrtrait photos of the writers. Freedland is one of the worst, in the sense of false consciousness.

Still, almost all of them are photographed for their portrait photos, side-on, and sneering at the reader over the shoulder, seems to being their house style.

I used to comment there at times (only a very few mths), different u-name to here, even got an editor's pick once, on worker's rights.

Their Comment is Free has the stench of somethimg out of Orwell's 1984, far from free, more mild than some of my posts here, were there, they are such hypocrites and liars, disallow things for nothing. CiF? GTFO!

Never formally banned, but never to returning. I still reading at times with great cynicism, but they are the crap.

For the lighter touch, not being a U.S.A. person, never knew much abt. American football until much later, but saw OJ in Capricorn One as a child, so he is having some connection with 'Moon landings were the fake' conspiracy theories. Amusing to me.

Mr. Joyce, thank you for interesting writing, I am reading it at your main site at times, too.

jilles dykstra > , July 27, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT

@utu Avner Cohen, 'Israel and the Bomb', New York 1998

The writer, or maybe the Israeli censor, goes to great length to hide the two week period.

jilles dykstra > , July 27, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@annamaria I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it.

Moi > , July 27, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke None said it better!

for-the-record > , July 27, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it .

I don't believe that's actually correct. But until your post I wasn't aware that there was any connection, however murky, between the Guardian and Soros. The best I can find is the following, can you suggest anything more definitive?

http://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/uks-guardian-bed-soros-sees-russian-spies-behind-every-christmas-tree/ri18403

annamaria > , July 27, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Randal Freedland was piping the same hateful tune against Corbyn: https://off-guardian.org/2017/06/10/jonathan-freedlands-corbyn-apology/

yeah > , July 27, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

Friedland, the author of the phantasy fiction in which President Trump gets killed, is a typical specimen of the "neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates".

What exactly the multi-culti, LGBTQ, identity-obsessed, ultra liberals have against Trump beats me just as much as a three-legged transgender alien might. A psychotic one can understand; a deluded soul one can pity or ignore; a fanatic of the traditional right/left variety one can plan to deal with; but how on earth does one come to terms with the nominally sane but dangerously fanatical no-holds-barred warriors from the loony left who are prepared to destroy all and everything? Intellectual battle would be about as useful as reasoning with a psychotic, and physical battle with pansies is not an enticing prospect either. Political debates and re-elections would also not resolve the matter with people who have no respect for any facts, laws, or systems other than their own. Perhaps the only solution might be to cast them off to outer space to colonize their own planet, per Stephen Hawking's prescription for the human race.

Seriously, the degree of seething hate, lying, hypocrisy, and fanaticism we see in the new breed of self-proclaimed "progressives" is cause for serious worry. I despair and beg keener minds to propose solutions.

Anonymous > , • Disclaimer July 27, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT

Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian,

How many "British people" have requested, or demanded, his demotion from his job place at the Guardian?

The fewer they have been, the righter has he been in behaving and writing the way he has.It is happens over a non-brief time span, it means that it works. If it works, it's right.

Same as for the "neurotic". What is insanity? Only what is disliked by the crowd, or those with power. It's not this journalist's case (or he would have lost his job), so "neurotic" doesn't apply to him.

[Jul 28, 2017] The moment Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the moment the United States government entered the crisis. If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct or if I have understood it correctly then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than Russiagate

Notable quotes:
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded." ..."
"... That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ..."
"... Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

h | Jul 27, 2017 10:34:06 AM | 106

karlof1 @35 - Thanks for the link to Mercouris' article. What he is realizing is what many have been alluding to for quite some time.

" If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded."

" That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ."

The U.S. government is in a 'profound crisis.'

It is impossible to forget that Hillary was the anointed one to follow zero. The moment the numbers came in on the eve of the election showing Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the moment the United States government entered the crisis.

What little we are slowly learning is that Zero politicized every department charged with conducting the affairs on behalf of the people. What we learned shortly after Trump took office from an investigation conducted by Sen Grassley of the Sen Judiciary committee was the tip of the iceberg, that was all of the financial settlements from the banking industry following the 2008 financial meltdown went into a DOJ slush fund that was then dispersed to support groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and many, many more. Sessions ended those funds from being handed out within the first couple of month's of his taking office.

It was little reported. But think about the millions upon millions in those settlements. As well, I'd be remiss not to make note, but as part of the numerous settlements, DOJ would suggest, as part of the deal, that the bank or business settling make a 'tax deductible' donation to organizations of the DOJ's choosing. This was once the Chicago way of doing business, maybe it still is.

Had the 'anointed' one won trust these groups, good or bad, would have only grown and continued their disruptive practices on the streets of anywhere USA. Had that continued cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, etc would have been begging for federal help to cease such disruption aka Martial Law.

I could go on and on about the many projects/programs Zero put in place only to have the anointed one to carry them through to fruition. All such programs ended on the eve of the election.

Also take notice that there has not been a horrific shooting since at least October, maybe even September, here in the U.S. One might want to ask why?

Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment.

Oh, there was a plan in place alright, and we're only at the beginning of the curtain being pulled back. In the meantime those radical leaders in congress who hide behind the D or R label are more than happy to grind the people's business to a complete halt.

/div
/div

[Jul 28, 2017] Vyatrovich has announced the complete de-Russification of Ukraine

Jul 28, 2017 | gravatar.com

Moscow Exile says: July 22, 2017 at 2:03 pm Вятрович анонсировал полную дерусификацию Украины

Vyatrovich has announced the complete de-Russification of Ukraine

The warnings of many experts, namely, that de-communization is just an excuse, the first preparatory stage or a smokescreen for the principle action, namely the de-Russification of the Ukraine, has acquired real and official confirmation.

The Director of the so-called Institute of National Memory, Vladimir Vyatrovich, who is, in fact, the main ideologist of the current regime in Kiev, has announced that the end of de-communization will conjoin with the start of a campaign for the complete de-Russification of the Ukraine. De-communization does not solve the basic problem of the Kiev regime, that of a complete separation from Russia. De-Russification, if it is successful, will make the process complete.

"We understand that for the formation of the Ukraine as a strong, independent state not only is de-communization necessary, but also de-Russification", he said.

In 2004 Vyatrovich, a graduate of L'vov University and true son of Galitsia, defended his doctoral thesis:

"UPA raids beyond the Ukrainian borders as part of the creation of an anti-totalitarian national-democratic revolution among the nations of East-Central Europe".

He had already had a book published on the same subject in 2001.

It seems that butchering Poles and Jews -- including men, women and children -- was, according to him, part and parcel of an "anti-totalitarian national-democratic revolution among the nations of East-Central Europe".

I wonder if he has ever tried to present his thesis in Poland?

[Jul 27, 2017] The irony is, the US is currently "experiencing" its own medicine of regime change

Notable quotes:
"... Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change. ..."
"... The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. ..."
"... 'investigations' ..."
"... 'regime change'. ..."
"... Clearly, Petras's reading of the splattered entrails augers for an almost certain overseas war. ..."
"... Always unifying, cathartic, and expedient, aggression towards a commonly perceived enemy is a sure bet that is almost impossible to resist for high-stakes rollers whose survival instincts have proven their efficacy time and again over a life time in the game. ..."
"... The irony is, the US is currently "experiencing" its own medicine of regime change, which was tried before on so many unfortunate "countries of interest." The main movers (coup makers) believe that they will become more powerful and overall better off after the coup d'etat. ..."
"... The low burlesque of the ongoing American regime-change would be ridiculous if it was not extremely dangerous -- actually, deadly. ..."
"... What is truly amazing is the at-hand crowds of the relatively young and well-to-do "activists" supporting the coup d'etat out of a livid hatred of Trump (and his whole family). ..."
"... The coup plotters against Trump are grabbing a tiger by the tail. The plotters are undermining the democratic institutions of the State. Should they succeed US democracy will be significantly weakened & delegitimised in the minds of the public. ..."
"... The coup-plotters dwell and circulate within various power configurations that are virtually untouchable. And these power-hungry insurgents will not compromise. ..."
"... The analysis of UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs of Trump's policy is that Trump understands that the days of USA world empire (aspirations) are over, Deep State is the part of USA unable and unwilling to see this. ..."
"... All sounds very plausible. In such a crisis which way will the military fall. If towards Trump then maybe they will deal with CIA/FBI/Homeland Security who are enemies of the people? ..."
"... Unfortunately again, the "Western" system of "democracy" (i.e. disguised plutocracy) promotes to executive decision-making positions people who are not intelligent or moral enough to handle this situation. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | unz.com

With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime.

While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is riven by rival power centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.

In the first place, the strategically placed security apparatus is no longer under Presidential control: They operate in coordination with insurgent Congressional power centers, mass media and extra-governmental power configurations among the oligarchs (business, merchants, arms manufacturers, Zionists and special interest lobbies).

Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.

The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.

The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies.

The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington

From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'.

Neddal, July 25, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT • 200 Words

Clearly, Petras's reading of the splattered entrails augers for an almost certain overseas war.

Always unifying, cathartic, and expedient, aggression towards a commonly perceived enemy is a sure bet that is almost impossible to resist for high-stakes rollers whose survival instincts have proven their efficacy time and again over a life time in the game.

There is nothing like a few dozens tomahawks lobbed around here and there to bring tears of joy and awe to the most jaded of adversaries and have them line-up behind your cause.

Of course, no shortage exists of candidate beneficiaries for such largess on the part of the imperium, given the very laudable nature of their sacrifices, honorably expended on behalf of humanity to save their too-big-to fail benefactor and the leader of the free world.

The list of likely early volunteers is sure to include, among others of course, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Philippines, and a few nameless and/or insignificant places, abundant and equally eager to serve, in Africa and the Middle East.

annamaria, July 26, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT

" prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'."

The irony is, the US is currently "experiencing" its own medicine of regime change, which was tried before on so many unfortunate "countries of interest." The main movers (coup makers) believe that they will become more powerful and overall better off after the coup d'etat. What else could be expected from people with a cartoonish understanding of history and with opportunistic profiteering as their man craft? -- Pygmies.

The coup d'etat-minded "sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy " consist of moral and intellectual pygmies. The low burlesque of the ongoing American regime-change would be ridiculous if it was not extremely dangerous -- actually, deadly.

What is truly amazing is the at-hand crowds of the relatively young and well-to-do "activists" supporting the coup d'etat out of a livid hatred of Trump (and his whole family). Some of these "activists" believe that Trump "is destroying" something "very important" that has been "built" under Obama. How these delusions re Obama legacy have reached the heads of the "activists" is hard to explain.

animalogic, July 26, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT • 100 Words

The coup plotters against Trump are grabbing a tiger by the tail. The plotters are undermining the democratic institutions of the State. Should they succeed US democracy will be significantly weakened & delegitimised in the minds of the public.

In the absence of a massive, sustained & coordinated public outcry, a precedent will be set: should the deep state & its elite supporters dislike a president or ANY elected official they can & will remove that individual via whatever nefarious means work best.

And the public ? Well, they can "like it or lump it" .

Grandpa Charlie, July 26, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 200 Words

On the diagnosis (analysis) side of Petras' essay, I see one great omission: no where does Petras mention the neocons or their pay master, the PRC, or more precisely, the Standing Committee of the CCP. Surely, that should have appeared somewhere, especially in the parenthetical listing of "oligarchs" in the sixth paragraph of the section headed "Who Rules the Empire".

... ... ...

Mark Green, July 26, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT • 100 Words

Interesting synthesis by Petras. Yes, the Empire is genuine, but wildly disunited. As a nation, we are fracturing along lines that didn't exist just a generation ago. And the cracks are really showing. Trouble ahead.

The coup-plotters dwell and circulate within various power configurations that are virtually untouchable. And these power-hungry insurgents will not compromise. They want Trump's head. There will be blood.

jilles dykstra, July 26, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT • 200 Words

I wonder if the present USA can be compared to the Brtish empire in the thirties. Without USA military help Britain would have had to capitulate in november 1917, yet even now in november, november 1918 was the German capitulation, Britis celebrate their victory with poppies.

French have the same aberration, every year they celebrate the German capitulation of 1945. Their defeat in three weeks in 1940 is conveniently forgotten.

The analysis of UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs of Trump's policy is that Trump understands that the days of USA world empire (aspirations) are over, Deep State is the part of USA unable and unwilling to see this.

British military planners in the thirties warned the politicians over and over again that GB would be unable to defend the empire in case of war, an empire from GB trough the Mediterranean to Singapore and New Zealand. Yet politicians thought they would be ready for war in september 1939. Chamberlain's 1938 Munich was just for buying time. They succeeded, through Polish provocations, to get their war just in time.

It was the beginning of the end of the empire, as Churchill found out in Casablanca, he was at the mercy of FDR, who wanted his own empire.

ThereisaGod, July 26, 2017 at 7:54 am GMT

All sounds very plausible. In such a crisis which way will the military fall. If towards Trump then maybe they will deal with CIA/FBI/Homeland Security who are enemies of the people?

Tom Welsh, July 26, 2017 at 10:21 am GMT • 100 Words

@Neddal

Unfortunately for us all, the traditional remedy of a "splendid little war" is rapidly ceasing to be available. On the continent of Asia – where American aggression and murder has been focused – there exist great powers that can match the USA's military strength. As that strength extends to a thermonuclear (and chemical and biological) arsenal that could destroy all human life on the planet many times over, if it is deployed against an adversary of equal power the outcome is obvious. Everyone dies.

Unfortunately again, the "Western" system of "democracy" (i.e. disguised plutocracy) promotes to executive decision-making positions people who are not intelligent or moral enough to handle this situation.

They are entirely capable of ramming their heads into a jar too narrow to escape from.

[Jul 27, 2017] The neoliberal system of governance is designed to protect the interests of the most powerful members of financial oligarchy. Trump can t challenge that, but he can expose them. What is good for Goldman Sacks is good to America slogan is here to stay

Notable quotes:
"... the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave. ..."
"... His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

jacques sheete > , July 27, 2017 at 12:31 am GMT

@Wally After only 7 months, is it really that bad for Trump's agenda? I think not.

Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.

He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.

The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.

[Jul 27, 2017] Trump greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washingtons Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see

Jul 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Erebus, July 27, 2017 at 1:13 am GMT

@jacques sheete Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.

He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.

The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak. During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.

So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope

His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.

Seamus Padraig, July 27, 2017 at 10:43 am GMT

@Erebus During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.

So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope...

His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.

His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.

You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy') is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis!

[Jul 27, 2017] Obama led a CIA coup in the Ukraine

Notable quotes:
"... Was not aware until recently, that (0)bama led a CIA coup in the Ukraine., a policy which leads up to today's Russia-gate maniacal following from the CIA fed media. ..."
"... The intercepted conversation by Nuland--"Fuck the EU"--announced the impending coup and confessed the Outlaw US Empire's responsibility for its occurrence. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

JSonofa | Jul 27, 2017 6:23:54 PM | 123

Was not aware until recently, that (0)bama led a CIA coup in the Ukraine., a policy which leads up to today's Russia-gate maniacal following from the CIA fed media. If I were Trump, I'd go on national TV and spill these beans.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/07/opinion-current-big-lie.html

karlof1 | Jul 27, 2017 7:03:25 PM | 124

JSonofa @123--

Thanks for providing such a great example of what dh and I were discussing. The intercepted conversation by Nuland--"Fuck the EU"--announced the impending coup and confessed the Outlaw US Empire's responsibility for its occurrence.

The lie of "Russian Aggression" in Ukraine is made to cover up the #1 Crime committed by the Outlaw US Empire. Most of the entire sanctions regime is based on that Big Lie. And the US Congress has just implemented further policy based on that Big Lie--and its bipartisan!!

The Big Lie Dictatorship is what rules the Outlaw US Empire.

[Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'. ..."
"... The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad. ..."
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents. ..."
"... Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
"... Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order. ..."
Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. http://petras.lahaine.org/

[Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Apr 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.

Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.

Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US 'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.

Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests, empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.

Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.

Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries. Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.

Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor. However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political independence.

Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism

The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and change the contours of empire.

The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.

Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent' (finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and the import of cheap consumer goods.

Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to strangle the revolutionary governments.

The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology

With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia. Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated 'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.

Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded.

The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century

Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling. China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer goods to North America and the EU.

The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.

In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages, leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.

The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.

Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness. As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option

The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many 'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.

Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars, accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists, who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.

A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America

Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial 'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.

The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent. The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.

Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis and rising class conflict.

Short-Lived Success in the Middle East

The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.

Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.

Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack

Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.

Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes, the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats, fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.

Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress its unreliable allies and mercenaries.

What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building blocks.

The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.

A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes. Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from the incredible global mess they created

They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war, unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.

The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within the US.

The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some 'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.

Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts to score a conquest or temporary military victory.

Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly, to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump. This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.

Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War

While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.

The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia with a 'surprise' first strike.

The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.

Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.

The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists, especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.

Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the Black Sea against Crimea.

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.

The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful, but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.

China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue. This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power . barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.

As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale down their nuclear weapons program.

The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive missile capacity.

With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive missiles to complement the build-up in the West.

The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region. The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea but really aims at China.

South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down.

In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.

China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity. The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial imports.

Conclusion

The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies.

On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.

Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.

The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American Century'.

Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington. They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.

This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities of China and Russia.

The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing to launch a globally destructive war.

The Alarmist , April 25, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT \n

"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."

You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. Read More

nsa , April 26, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia? Even the American public isn't that stupid.

There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:

1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack on Iran,

2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly

3) the paper tiger would lose another one.

Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything to westerners, you know . Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT \n
@nsa

Oh yes they are. Their stupidity is boundless.

Anonymous , April 26, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT \n
I kind of agree with you, I kind of don't.

No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and Russia stand in their way.

Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.

But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle East will take the priority.

So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid and they didn't take the bait.

China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics. And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.

dearieme , April 26, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT \n
"providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese"

Come off it! The Red Army assiduously avoided fighting the Japanese. Read More

Tulip , April 26, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT \n
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of everyone.
Robert Magill , April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n

China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen each and soldier on.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com Read More

neutral , April 26, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT \n

One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.

What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear strikes hitting it ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

El Dato , April 26, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT \n

Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese

This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill. After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.

Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT \n
@Robert Magill

The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!

The US would never survive a small nuclear attack

Astuteobservor II , April 28, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT \n
@El Dato

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html

from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong. 45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from the usa.

Monty Ahwazi , April 29, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
@The Alarmist
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement.

The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT \n
200 Words @Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. Read More

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT \n
@Robert Magill

Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens, etc.

Corvinus , April 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT \n
@Wizard of Oz

Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.

Ludwig Von , April 29, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT \n
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?

Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.

Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump

In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against a mutual ally to Russia and China.

denk , April 29, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT \n
Uncle sham, 'Pay up or else !'

http://bit.ly/2pJezx6

hhhhhh

Wizard of Oz , April 29, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT \n
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an Amrrican citizen yesterday .

[Jul 26, 2017] America or Israel by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... I find it troublesome that the US military or associated agencies are so interwoven with Israeli state forces and institutions. In my assessment, such intense interrelationships violate George Washington's counsels in his Farewell Address, just as surely as Mast's attitudes invert the counsels of Christianity. ..."
"... Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28 Dec 2016 "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! " ..."
"... I'm neither Disaspora-Jewish nor Evangelical Christian, and I'm behind Israel 100 percent. The problem in the Holy Land is this: two objects occupying--or claiming to occupy--the same space. That's impossible, so you have to pick one. I pick Israel. ..."
"... Our youth are often sacrificed to foreign wars fought for immoral causes - witness Vietnam and Iraq. ..."
"... George Washington and his fellow European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of North America what Jewish European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of the Levant. (To be fair, though, the Zionists, if only for lack of opportunity, did not capture, import, and permanently enslave millions of people from another land.) ..."
"... It's noteworthy that both Zionists and Nazis invoked the "American" treatment of the indigenous population to justify their own crimes. As Israeli historian Benny Morris said back in 2004, "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians." ..."
"... So invoking the settler-colonial nationalism of the slave owner and murdering land-stealer, George Washington, is something Zionists, not their opponents, can do honestly. ..."
"... This is a ridiculous, and all too common argument from Jews – the land of the U.S. was stolen from the natives so Americans can't say anything about Israel stealing Palestine from Palestinians. ..."
"... First of all, the native people of North America were literally living in the stone age when Whites showed up and their lives have been made immeasurably better thanks to the inventions and largesse of the White man. In contrast, Palestinians have done nothing but suffer under Israeli rule. ..."
"... Second, native North Americans are subsidized to the point of billions of dollars every year and receive every possible benefit from the government (and taxpaying Whites). Free health care, education and every form of affirmative action that's ever been dreamt up are all theirs for the taking. Tell us friend, does the Jewish state extend this to Palestinians as it does to Jews? ..."
Jan 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

I am reluctant to write about the "Israel problem" at the heart of U.S. foreign policy two weeks in a row but it seems that the story just will not go away as the usual suspects pile on the Barack Obama Administration over its alleged betrayal of America's "best and greatest friend and ally in the whole world."

Even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his gaggle of war criminals continue to foam at the mouth over the United Nations vote it is, in truth, difficult to blame Israel for what is happening. The Israelis are acting on what they see as their self interest in dominating their neighbors militarily and having a free hand to deal with the Palestinians in any way they see fit. And as for their relationship with Washington, what could be better than getting billions of dollars every year, advanced weapons and unlimited political cover in exchange for absolutely nothing?

Surely even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that the settlements are illegal under international law and are an impediment to any peaceful resolution with the Palestinians, which is what Resolution 2334 says. It has been U.S. policy to oppose them since they first starting popping up like mushrooms, but Netanyahu has encouraging their expansion in full knowledge that he is creating facts on the ground that will be irreversible. He has also pledged to his voters that he will not permit the creation of a Palestinian state, so why should anyone be confused about his intentions?

Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative summed up the situation perfectly, observing that "Calling out Israel for its ongoing illegal behavior becomes unavoidable when there is no progress in resolving the conflict, and the current Israeli government has made it very clear that there won't be any progress Israel isn't actually an ally, much less a 'vital' one, and it certainly isn't 'critical' to our security. The U.S. isn't obliged to cater to some of the worst policies of a client government that has increasingly become a liability. The real problem with the U.S. abstention on the resolution is that it came many years after it might have done some significant good, and it comes so late because Obama wasted his entire presidency trying to 'reassure' a government that undermined and opposed him time and again."

So stop blaming Israel for acting selfishly, since that is the nature of the beast, as in the fable of the frog and the scorpion. More to the point, it is the American Quislings who should be the focus of any examination of what is taking place as they are deliberately misrepresenting nearly every aspect of the discussion and flat out lying about what might actually be at stake due to Washington's being shackled to Netanyahu's policies. I will leave it to the reader to decide why so many U.S. politicians and media talking heads have betrayed their own country's interests in deference to the shabby arguments being put forward on behalf of an openly apartheid theocracy, but I might suggest that access to money and power have a lot to do with it as the Israel Lobby has both in spades.

The Quislings are making two basic arguments in their defense of surrendering national sovereignty to a troublesome little client state located half a world away. First, they are claiming that any acknowledgement that the Israelis have behaved badly is counterproductive because it will encourage intransigence on the part of the Arabs and thereby diminish prospects for a viable peace agreement, which has to be negotiated between the two parties. Second, the claim is being made that the abstention on the U.N. vote violates established U.S. policy on the nature of the conflict and, in so doing, damages both Israeli and American interests. Bloomberg's editorial board has conjoined the two arguments, adroitly claiming in an over-the-top piece entitled "Obama's Betrayal of Israel at the U.N. Must Not Stand" that the abstention "breaks with past U.S. policy, undermines a vital ally and sets back the cause of Middle East peace."

Citing the damaged peace talks argument, which is what the Israeli government itself has been mostly promoting, Donald Trump denounced the U.N. resolution from a purely Israeli perspective, stating that "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis." He subsequently added "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect," a comment that just might be regarded as either tongue in cheek or ironic because that is precisely how Israel treats Washington. It is reported, however, that Trump does not do irony.

The pundits who most often scream the loudest in defense of Israel are often themselves Jewish, many having close ties to the Netanyahu government. They would undoubtedly argue that their ethno-religious propinquity to the problem they are discussing does not in any way influence their views, but that would be nonsense. One of those persistently shouting the loudest regarding the "peace" canard is the ubiquitous Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has never seen anything in Israel that he dislikes. He commented that Obama had stabbed Israel in the back and had made "peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the U.N.'"

Syndicated columnist and fellow Israeli zealot Charles Krauthammer added his two cents , noting that the resolution abstention had meant that Washington had "joined the jackals at the U.N." Observing that the U.N. building occupies "good real estate in downtown New York City Trump ought to find a way to put his name on it and turn it into condos." Iran-Contra's own Elliot Abrams, who opposes Jews marrying non-Jews, meanwhile repeats the Krauthammer "jackals" meme and also brays about the "abandonment of Israel at the United Nations."

But the prize for pandering to Jewish power and money has to go to the eminent John Bolton, writing on December 26 th about "Obama's Parting Betrayal of Israel" in The Wall Street Journal (there is a subscription wall but if you go to Google and search you can get around it). Bolton, an ex-Ambassador to the U.N under the esteemed George W. Bush, is a funny looking guy who reportedly did not get a position with the Trump administration because of his Groucho Marx moustache. He currently pontificates from the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where he is something called a senior fellow. He has written a book "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad," which is available for 6 cents used on Amazon, plus shipping. There is another John Bolton who wrote "Marada the She-Wolf," but they are apparently not related.

In his piece, Bolton hit on both the peace talks and the "I'm backing Israel arguments." He uniquely starts out by claiming that Barack Obama "stabbed Israel in the front" by failing to stop Resolution 2334, which he then describes as "clearly intended to tip the peace process towards the Palestinians abandon[ing] any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences." That's the peace argument plus the negotiations fiction rolled together. He then goes on to argue that Obama has betrayed Israel by "essentially endors[ing] the Palestinian politico-legal narrative about territory formerly under League of Nations' mandate."

Bolton concedes that the damage has already been done by Obama's complicity "in assaulting Israel" and the opening can be exploited by what he describes as the "anti-Israeli imagineers" at the United Nations. He calls on Donald Trump to work to "mitigate or reverse" such consequences and specifically "move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct their error." That they cheered loudly when the resolution passed apparently will have to also be somehow expunged, though Bolton does not mention that. Nations that refuse to go along with the repeal "would have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly" while "the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences."

Bolton is unhesitatingly placing Israeli priorities ahead of American interests by his willingness to punish actual U.S. allies like Britain, Germany and France, as well as major powers Russia and China, out of pique over their vote against the settlements. He also recommends withholding the U.S. contributions to the U.N., which amount to over 20% of the budget. Bolton then goes on to reject any Palestinian state of any kind, recommending instead that a rump version of territory where the bulk of the Palestinians will be allowed to live be transferred to Jordanian control.

As always, there is scant attention paid by any of the Israel boosters for actual American interests in continuing to perform proskynesis in front of Netanyahu and whatever reptile might succeed him. American values and needs are invisible, quite rightly, because they are of no interest to John Bolton and his fellow knee jerkers at AEI, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Brookings, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the rest of the alphabet soup that depends on the generosity of pro-Israel donors to keep the lights on.

Bolton provides precisely one short sentence relating to Washington's stake in the game being played, noting that the U.N. abstention poses "major challenges for American interests." He never says what those interests are because there are none, or at least none that matter, apart from godfathering a viable two state solution which Israel has basically made impossible. And that is only an interest because it would lessen much of the world's disdain for U.S. hypocrisy while mitigating the radicalization of young Muslims turned terrorists who are in part enraged by the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, blaming it correctly on American connivance. In reality having the U.S. finally vote on the side of sanity and fairness is really a good thing for Americans and hopefully will lead to severing a bizarre "special relationship" that supports a kleptocracy in Asia that has been nothing but trouble.

Randal , January 3, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

The pundits who most often scream the loudest in defense of Israel are often themselves Jewish, many having close ties to the Netanyahu government. They would undoubtedly argue that their ethno-religious propinquity to the problem they are discussing does not in any way influence their views

And their disingenuous declarations are now arguably backed by force of law in the UK, where referring to the potential for mixed loyalties on the part of jewish people in relation to the jewish nation falls within the "official definition of anti-Semitism" recently adopted as a result of despicable pandering by politicians at the very highest levels.

n230099 . January 3, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT

" and it comes so late because Obama wasted his entire presidency "

LOL!! And yet still a God to some. He was supposed to get the U.S. out of the region. Now the trail he and the war criminals Bush, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Kerry, Rice and Power leave is lined with more dead civilians than have died on either side in Palestine and Israel since 48. Israeli/Palestinian issues are not without some significance but pale in the scope of the war crimes of the U.S in the past 16 years. Millions dead and all we hear is 'f'n Jews' .

• Replies: @uslabor US General Wesley Clark said in 2002 he was given a memo "that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." Every one of those countries a potential enemy of Israel.

I think, in addition to the obvious oil resources, the US attacked those countries for the benefit of Israel.

It ain't so much, as you say "f'n Jews". For me it is F*cking Zionist Israelis and their Neoconservative enablers in Washington.

Patriot says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT

Philip,

You are a brave man. It is very dangerous to critize Israel or Jews. Please be safe. Thanks for having the courage to speak truth to power.

• Replies: @Junior Amen to that! Courage indeed!

Even when an assault is caught on camera like what occured to Alison Weir at the National Press Club, of all places, there are no consequences for attacks on those that have the courage to criticize Israel.

I filed a pollice report and then waited and waited. Finally, the detective in charge of determining whether or not to prosecute Murray decided not to do so. The detective's name is in another notebook somewhere. As I recall, it was Rosenbaum or something similar.
http://alisonweir.org/journal/2011/5/23/israel-is-not-alone-member-knocks-phone-out-of-my-hand-press.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BZ-Ye0nTGo

Hrw-500 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

That reminds me of a very politically incorrect cartoon made by a guy nicknamed A. Wyatt Mann.

http://afloweroutofstone.tumblr.com/post/110285737337/on-nuance

• Replies: @SolontoCroesus re the first cartoon, "Join the US Army, Fight for Israel"

This morning C Span Washington Journal interviewed new members of US Congress.

Among them was Brian Mast, a Republican who defeated Patrick Murphy in Florida's 18th district, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's former district. https://www.c-span.org/video/?419267-3/interview-representativeelect-brian-mast-rfl

Mast was a bomb detonations expert in US military who lost both legs and an arm in Afghanistan. Mast said he'd never thought about running for congress until he wound up at Walter Reed hospital; he said he had thought he'd spend his career doing what he loved -- "jumping out of airplanes and kicking in doors and roping out of helicopters." He said it was "very difficult for him to lose that purpose" he'd had in life.
In the process of "finding another battlefield to fight on," many congressmen & staffers visited him.
He eventually went to work for various US counterterrorism agencies in addition to
"spending some time in the Israeli army . . . of which I'm very very proud. . . . I'm probably the only congressman who has been in the Israeli military . . .

According to wikipedia, Mast attended Christian schools and identifies as a Christian; no denomination is mentioned. Whatever denomination it is, apparently their Jesus counsels: "Blessed are they who kick in doors, for they shall be called peacemakers;" and "Seek and ye shall find, kick and the door shall open . . ."

Mast said he applied his military, mission-oriented training to preparing himself to function in congress. He moved seamlessly from military to counterterrorism,

With the Israeli military he worked in a role that Mast identified as SAREL (?), "which allows individuals from around the world to work with the Israeli military . . . a program they rely on quite heavily to accomplish a lot of what they need to go on with their military, as they don't have nearly as large a military as the United States."

(The closest I could find to "SAREL" was an Israeli medical and pharmaceutical research, development and production corporation,
Israel's largest private supplier under one roof of goods and services to healthcare and medical institutions. )

I find it troublesome that the US military or associated agencies are so interwoven with Israeli state forces and institutions. In my assessment, such intense interrelationships violate George Washington's counsels in his Farewell Address, just as surely as Mast's attitudes invert the counsels of Christianity.

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

, @Alden What's the official song of the Israeli army?

Onward Christian Soldiers

Lot says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:15 am GMT • 100 Words

as the usual suspects pile on the Barack Obama Administration over its alleged betrayal of America's "best and greatest friend and ally in the whole world."

"Usual suspects" = Vast majority of American voters. Once again the tiresome fringely Israel bashers have lost an election.

http://imgur.com/a/3neon

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28 Dec 2016 "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! "

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 22 Dec 2016

The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed

Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:37 am GMT @Charlotte Allen

Love all you Joo-obsessors coming out of the woodwork.

I'm neither Disaspora-Jewish nor Evangelical Christian, and I'm behind Israel 100 percent. The problem in the Holy Land is this: two objects occupying--or claiming to occupy--the same space. That's impossible, so you have to pick one. I pick Israel.

Israel is the West--and it's the way the West ought to be but isn't, at least so far in Europe: a bulwark against Islam, which is the real menace to Western civilization, not some crazy haredim in yarmulkes living out in the middle of nowhere. Israel stands up to Islam. We don't. At least till now (Trump). I don't care if everything you say about the Jews, the Jewish lobby, or whatever, is true. I stand for Israel, because I don't stand for the Dar al-Islam. Have any of you ever been to Israel? I have. Where would you rather live: Israel (a beautiful and prosperous country) or an Islamic hellhole (pick any Muslim country--hey, pick Turkey! See you at the next Istanbul nightclub!)?

The settlements are Israel's way of saying: We won. It's what the victors in wars do. Want to have no settlements in your country? Try actually winning one of the three stupid wars plus God knows how many intifadas you've started with the aim of driving the Israelis to the sea. "International law"? You actually believe the U.N. ought to be running the world? What are you--a bunch of lefties?

How sorry do I feel for the poor, poor Palestinians? Hey--not sorry at all! They've spent, what, six decades sitting on their behinds and whining when not 1) lobbing rockets at Israelis; 2) bombing school buses and restaurants; and 3) dancing in the streets over stuff like 9/11. Plus making life miserable for the few Christians left in the Holy Land. That alone puts me on the side of the Israelis.

Yeah, yeah, most American Jews are irritating liberals, and I wish they'd cut it out. Especially the victimology stuff with the country clubs, since they're America's most successful ethnic group. And I don't buy neocon foreign policy, since there's no reason for Americans to be fighting wars and dying in them in the Mideast, period. Israel does an excellent job of furthering its own interests, such as staying in existence, and Bibi strikes me as an excellent behind-the-scenes power player--you know he's got lines into both Syria and Russia.

If Israel gets attacked, I'm all for aiding Israel, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't--unless the Muslims would like to see even more settlements.

And finally, I can't stand John Bolton's mustache. Neither can Trump, I'm told. Meanwhile, yay for Trump! When I think "quisling," I think Obama, not Trump--sorry.

you called it "holy land" :P that tells me more than enough.

Charlotte Allen says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:39 am GMT @paratrop

Our youth are often sacrificed to foreign wars fought for immoral causes - witness Vietnam and Iraq. I am sure that Rachel Corrie's parents will continue to grieve all their lives for their beautiful daughter but at least they have the comfort and pride that she died for a truly moral reason and has become a worldwide beacon of the cause. Vale Rachel.

Oh yeah, she died for being an idiot who thought it was kind of like the Sixties: stuffing daisies into gun muzzles. Her parents should have had the sense to tell her that war is serious business.

Johnny Smoggins says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 4:17 am GMT • 100 Words @Aaron Aarons

George Washington and his fellow European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of North America what Jewish European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of the Levant. (To be fair, though, the Zionists, if only for lack of opportunity, did not capture, import, and permanently enslave millions of people from another land.)

It's noteworthy that both Zionists and Nazis invoked the "American" treatment of the indigenous population to justify their own crimes. As Israeli historian Benny Morris said back in 2004, "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians."

So invoking the settler-colonial nationalism of the slave owner and murdering land-stealer, George Washington, is something Zionists, not their opponents, can do honestly.

This is a ridiculous, and all too common argument from Jews – the land of the U.S. was stolen from the natives so Americans can't say anything about Israel stealing Palestine from Palestinians.

First of all, the native people of North America were literally living in the stone age when Whites showed up and their lives have been made immeasurably better thanks to the inventions and largesse of the White man. In contrast, Palestinians have done nothing but suffer under Israeli rule.

Second, native North Americans are subsidized to the point of billions of dollars every year and receive every possible benefit from the government (and taxpaying Whites). Free health care, education and every form of affirmative action that's ever been dreamt up are all theirs for the taking. Tell us friend, does the Jewish state extend this to Palestinians as it does to Jews?

[Jul 26, 2017] The Economist How the Jews control Congress Eylon A. Levy The Blogs The Times of Israel

Notable quotes:
"... The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American politics: the olive branch stands for America's commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness for war; and the Star of David, which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews and/or Israel over America's policies of war and peace. ..."
"... Peter Schrank's cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week's Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress, thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran's President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots. ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | blogs.timesofisrael.com

The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American politics: the olive branch stands for America's commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness for war; and the Star of David, which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews and/or Israel over America's policies of war and peace.

Peter Schrank's cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week's Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress, thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran's President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots.

The message is that either American Jews or Israel (and it is unclear which, because the Star of David is both a Jewish and Israeli symbol) are holding the United States back from making peace with Iran – and moreover, that they are doing so through their control of the machinery of the American government, since the Star of David is incorporated into the official insignia of the US, alongside the stars and stripes. The Israel Lobby, as the cartoon rather nefariously hints, is not a separate influence on the US government – it is a constituent part of it.

Schrank's previous cartoons have hardly been kind towards Israel, but one can only wonder what was going through the mind of his editors: there are questions about the impartiality of the magazine's coverage of Israel , but as last week's very fair and reasonable "Who is a Jew?" feature suggests, The Economist is hardly an anti-Semitic publication.

Intentionally or not, however, Schrank's cartoon is now an addition to the disturbing trend of cartoons hinting at the sinister control of Western governments by Israel or Jews, following Steve Bell's Guardian cartoon showing Netanyahu as a puppeteer with Tony Blair and William Hague as finger-puppets, and a cartoon in the Qatari Al-Watan newspaper depicting an Orthodox Jew driving with Obama's head as a gearstick and the UN logo as his steering wheel.

I shan't accuse The Economist directly of anti-Semitism, but it bears repeating that the EUMC Working Definition , adopted by the British government, covers "stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective -- such as the myth of Jews controlling the government" and also covers "using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterise Israel or Israelis". Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

The notion that Jews control the world's major institutions of power, including governments, media and banks, is one of the most established and pernicious myths peddled against Jews, and it is difficult not to see continuity between contemporary hints about "Zionist" control of world governments and nineteenth-century cartoons depicting a Jewish octopus with its tentacles over the globe.

In France, 29% believe Jews have too much control of international financial markets; in Italy, 39% believe Jews have too much power in the business world; and in Hungary, Poland and Spain, well over half of the population believes at least one of these propositions. In the United States , 14% believe that "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today", and that's from the most philo-Semitic of countries out there.

Anti-Semitic tropes enjoy even greater vibrancy in the Muslim world, where the Elders of Zion is taken as gospel, Jewish conspiracies are more common than Jews, and The Economist is available too – subtly, and quite probably unintentionally, reinforcing such prejudices.

The Economist's readership might be more intelligent than the general public, but it should not flatter itself. Even if its readers believe the myth of Jewish power in proportions far lower than is average, their perceptions are hardly likely to be dispelled by such cartoons, which contribute towards a toxic drip-drip in public discourse, confirming the unarticulated suspicions about Jewish power of those who find that such beliefs are neither rare nor taboo.

It may well be that the cartoon was intended only as a nod to the influence of Israel or AIPAC in Washington's policy-making on Iran; and perhaps the cartoonist had good reasons not to include a Tricolore and shahada , despite similar pressure from the French and Saudis. Nevertheless, it does not take a Professor in Anti-Semitism Studies to understand how such an image can reinforce the myth of the Jewish conspiracy in the minds of those already convinced of its veracity, and for whom the words "Jewish lobby" trip too easily off the tongue.

Cartoons work by using images and symbols familiar to readers in order to induce them to read between the lines and infer a particular unspoken message from the image. The best that can be said about Schrank's cartoon is that it is ambiguous, but this ambiguity is precisely what makes it so noxious: the Economist can dissociate itself from the most toxic of interpretations, but still the process of "wink wink, nudge nudge" will continue to encourage readers, quite reasonably, to jump to conclusions about Jewish control over Capitol Hill from the incorporation of the Star of David into official US symbols.

Belief in a Jewish conspiracy is sufficiently prevalent worldwide that for the Economist to buttress them, even unintentionally, is negligent at best and utterly reckless at worst. If there is nuance, the Economist cannot protest innocence when it is lost in translation.

Update The Economist has pulled the cartoon from its website, explaining: "The print edition of this story had a cartoon which inadvertently caused offence to some readers, so we have replaced it with a photograph." Given that the article makes no mention of AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, or indeed Israel (bar a passing reference in brackets to Benjamin Netanyahu), this was probably a wise move.

[Jul 26, 2017] Muller as A bomb dropped on Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. ..."
"... It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. ..."
"... If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare. ..."
"... "President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports. ..."
Jul 24, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc , July 25, 2017 at 08:57 AM

Well, well the Right's mouthpieces in the media are turning against Trump

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/23/1683310/-Trump-Loses-Jennifer-Rubin-Torpedo-in-the-Water

"Trump Loses Jennifer Rubin. Torpedo in the Water"

By Next Conservatism...Sunday Jul 23, 2017...8:55 PM EST

"Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" column in The Washington Post was reliably partisan beyond reason during the Obama years, so it's been a shock to see her turn sane and lawyer-like in her #nevertrump position. In fact she's given up on Trump and turned naysayer against the GOP. Her prognostications for what comes next as the Mueller investigation unfolds offer a range of possibilities, all bad. Bet on this one:

..... 4. Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. LESSON: Congress must protect Mueller and preserve the possibility that Trump may be forced to resign.

That's the most likely scenario because it's to Trump's advantage in the same way that this entire presidency has been, as a branding effort to promote his business. If he rejects subpoenas and defies the law he's doing what he promised, fighting the evil Washington machine. If he leaves before a market correction he can allege that the spike in the Dow was his work; that he delivered on his promise to drive the Supreme Court rightward; that he gave the downtrodden Conservatives voters from both parties a real alternative; and that he is their martyr, their symbol of Making America Great Again despite all the efforts of the liars and partisans who forced him out. It's a perfect narrative, assuming that his resignation actually offers him some defense against indictment, which is not guaranteed.

It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. A third party of Trumpist candidates hand-picked by Trump is a realistic possibility. They'll run against the enemies Trump made in the deep red districts and force the GOP to accede to a Trumpist agenda or be defeated by it completely.

If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare.

If they're kingmakers instead of kings they can shelter themselves behind Far Right candidates, take huge money from political consultancies and influence peddling, and turn Conservatism into their business. Their properties and investments won't suffer, and they'll rebuild their fortresses of hidden deals and dark money. The GOP will be a sitting duck for them. The Trumps will do with the Republican Party what they do with any distressed property: take it over or tear it down it."

im1dc , July 24, 2017 at 05:47 PM
Trump wants to fire his Appointees Price if Obamacare Repeal and Replace fail, and Sessions for not protecting Trump from the Russian collusion investigation

The Big One is coming, I sense it and then every American must decide if Trump stays or goes, no more wiggle room after that happens

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343556-cruz-being-considered-to-replace-sessions-report

"Cruz being considered to replace Sessions: report"

By Jacqueline Thomsen...07/24/17...07:57 PM EDT

"President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports.

...Trump also slammed Sessions in a tweet Monday morning, asking why our "beleaguered A.G." wasn't investigating ties between Hillary Clinton and Russia...

...Trump associates are viewing a possible Sessions ousting as a step toward firing special counsel Robert Mueller, according to the Post."...

[Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... target for military conquest ..."
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress' and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing powerful US oligarchs.

For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.

The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs, have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats of judicial action).

Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as it now exists in the United States.

In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

What the 'Conflict' is Not About

  • The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
  • None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or independent governments.
  • Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque police state apparatus.
  • Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
  • Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.

Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.

What the Oligarchical Struggle is About

There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars and 'interventions'.

  • The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
  • The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
  • The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA), while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis' (US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and divide the country.
  • The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire. Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
  • The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.

While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and means.

For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest . Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US military dominance.

Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities

The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela. They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.

These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition' denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition' of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.

Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs' struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional order.

Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State

The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.

The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session (a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally within the Judiciary.

The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.

The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR), which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations, academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust the President.

The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party.

The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.

Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment, taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.

The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.

Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.

The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.

Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American Zionists.

But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's overseas opposition.

NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.

In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact on the domestic correlation of forces.

Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.

While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical , not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.

Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen; and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.

The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of former President Obama's seven wars.

While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.

Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.

Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser reductions in social programs.

Conclusion

The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.

The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.

The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.

Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.

The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.

Epilogue

After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.

The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the 'Oval Office'.

The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.

Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals. The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.

The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!

jilles dykstra > , June 1, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "

Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable.

So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation, is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration into Europe, and so on, and so forth.

Sergey Krieger > , June 1, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now.

The Alarmist > , June 1, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT

It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate.

The Alarmist > , June 1, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT

@The Alarmist

Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."

Robert Magill > , June 1, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!

Long live the Oligarchs!

"A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/

Sergey Krieger > , June 1, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

@The Alarmist The good thing there is no Hillary statue over there to fell under.

Vlad > , June 1, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard.

jacques sheete > , June 1, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.

The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic, either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.

It was designed and has functioned always as a de facto resoligrcharum .

It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though it is an agonizingly slow process

animalogic > , June 1, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT

This is a very good, thought provoking article.

Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements. He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.

What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues" become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get away with it)

A couple of negative points in the article:

Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ? "Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "

Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid – they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.

More positively: authorise spot ON here:

"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart."

Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

Mar 20, 2015 The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)

Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state.

Joseph E Fasciani > , Website June 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance.

Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American Democracy

Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.

Stephen Paul Foster > , Website June 1, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

Consider one of the most odious oligarchs of all time, Ted Kennedy. What damage he did.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/06/edward-teddy-kennedy-how-lecher-became.html

aandrews > , June 1, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Resoligrcharum. Definition?

jacques sheete > , June 1, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT

@aandrews

Resoligrcharum. Definition?

Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."

Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."

PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could have imagined,

nickels > , June 1, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT

@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.

Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT

@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann

jacques sheete > , June 2, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT

@Agent76

This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann

Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on another fabulous UNZ site.:

Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.

"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –

http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov15-00297

jacques sheete > , June 2, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT

@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.

This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

mises.org/daily/4254

RobinG > , June 2, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT

@The Alarmist

Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks email leaker.

On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.

Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.

The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.

Sign here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

elderlyrstaff > , Website June 2, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT

A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob. The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed. The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).

Dr. Doom > , June 2, 2017 at 2:47 am GMT

Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs" are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp, its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end of business tomorrow.

This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually mattered?

Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of the World as you know it, but I feel fine.

Joe Levantine > , June 2, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent, or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force, they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed

From Machiavelli's The Prince

If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY RULING CLASS.

If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.

Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put him in an ever weaker position.

nickels > , June 2, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.

Agent76 > , June 2, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book Propaganda literally titled propaganda.

Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda

Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations. This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."

alan2102 > , June 2, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT

@jacques sheete "It was designed and has functioned always as a de facto resoligrcharum"

Congratulations! It is rare that google gets completely stumped, but such is the case with "resoligrcharum". Try it. You'll see what I mean.

vx37 > , June 2, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT

In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism" is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.

- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph Sobran

Che Guava > , June 2, 2017 at 8:19 pm GMT

That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.

I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.

All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.

RobinG > , June 2, 2017 at 11:21 pm GMT

@Che Guava "Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."

How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?

Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation are what need investigating.

Agent76 > , June 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT

@Joseph E Fasciani

A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.

May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention

Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset. If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but at what point do the American People say enough is enough?

Che Guava > , June 3, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

@RobinG "Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."

How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?

Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened, as long as I keep track of where they are..

Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.

So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.

Madness.

Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.

After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised his voice against it.

My opinion is that he acts mainly out of guilt

RobinG > , June 3, 2017 at 9:49 pm GMT

@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump was a different guy in the campaign, no?)

Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement

Che Guava > , June 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@RobinG Thanks, RobinG,

I am a long-time Cynthia Mckinney fan, at the time she was in Congress, her and Ron Paul's were the only interesting voices.

Not being a USA person, I have no say.

Her political assassination from the House was also interesting, massive money from obvious sources, so she was out.

Not so interesting since, but no wonder.

Che Guava > , June 4, 2017 at 5:26 pm GMT

@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.

How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.

RobinG > , June 4, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT

@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that, she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following, and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.

Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's "March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not technically slick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview

Che Guava > , June 7, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

@RobinG Thx. Robin. I will watching it later.

I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long as I get a credit.

My own, too.

Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but I don't want to do it that way.

OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult, same kind of streaming format.

I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.

Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior, it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.

RobinG > , June 8, 2017 at 4:58 am GMT

@Che Guava Thx. Robin. I will watching it later.

I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long as I get a credit.

My own, too.

Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but I don't want to do it that way.

OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult, same kind of streaming format.

I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.

Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior, it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che, I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying) but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive glare.

What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.

[Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
"... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
"... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
"... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
"... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
"... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
"... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
"... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
"... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
"... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
"... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
"... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
"... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
"... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead forever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]

There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]

In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL. What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite. Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy" .

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Jul 25, 2017] John Helmer Jared Kushner's Testimonial to Stupidity and Unfitness American and Russian

They are still digging. Getting metters of his family into the administration was aworse then a crime of the part of Trump, it was a blunder...
Jul 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

...It is more than 200 kilometres from the current Russian frontier with Belarus and the historical border with the territory which for a thousand years has been occupied by Lithuanian, Polish, German and Russian imperial as well as Soviet forces. Kushner's grandparents actually came from Navahrudak (Навагрудак), spelled in Russian as Новогрудок (Novogrudok). The meaning of the word, which was first used for the place in the 11 th century, is "new little town". When the Germans arrived in July 1941, there were 20,000 residents, 10,000 of whom, including the Kushners, were Jewish. The Kushners escaped; the majority who didn't were killed. Kushner reveals he doesn't know. His, and everyone else's mistake, is 834 kilometres off the mark.

...But Kushner admits that during the campaign he "had incoming [sic] contacts with people from approximately 15 countries." He also had "hundreds" of "calls, letters and emails from people outside the United States." He says he asked Henry Kissinger for "advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate." He says he spoke once for "less than a minute" with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at an April 2016 Trump campaign speech in Washington, when the Russian was accompanied by three other foreign ambassadors; Kushner doesn't name them.

He denies any record of receiving or remembering two reported telephone calls with Kislyak between April and November, and had forgotten his name when, on November 9, an official congratulatory note arrived for Trump from President Vladimir Putin. From November 9 to January 20, Kushner says he received "over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries They included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more."

A neophyte in foreign affairs as Kushner confesses himself to be, he doesn't reveal that Videgaray and he set up candidate Trump's visit to Mexico City to meet the Mexican President on August 31. The Mexican reaction to that was extremely hostile. Videgaray was forced to resign as finance minister on September 7, but promoted to foreign minister on January 4. Videgaray might be charged with colluding with the Americans to advance himself, with Kushner as co-conspirator, but no senator on the Intelligence Committee is reported to have asked Kushner about that.

Kushner may not know the nicknames of Videgaray or King Abdullah, but he certainly refers to the Israeli prime minister as Bibi, an appellation well-known to Israelis and Jews worldwide. His official name is Benjamin, and there is ample evidence that Kushner has been familiar with Netanyahu for many years. Kushner's father is also widely reported in Israel as Netanyahu's personal friend. Kushner's slip in yesterday's evidence was to reveal just how familiar he is with that foreign official, who met with Trump and Kushner for a campaign appearance in Israel in June, five months before Election Day.

The special relationship between Israel and the US cannot be collusion – that's a rule of US politics. The rule wasn't quite so fixed in the 1980s when the FBI caught US officials at spying, stealing and smuggling on behalf of Israel, and sent one of them to prison; click for details

Nor can God and the Orthodox Jewish group known as Chabad-Lubavitch be reported as colluding in Trump's victory, despite the evidence that Kushner and his wife Ivanka prayed for it at a Lubavitcher shrine on the weekend before the poll.

The Israeli and Jewish community media also claim the possibility that Kushner's pilgrimage reminded God to intervene when there was a suspected assassination attempt against Trump in Arizona at the same time.

The inadvertence of these slips in Kushner's statement reinforces his claim that he knows the difference between collusion with Russians and special relationships with Mexican, Israeli and Lubavitcher friends. The US press and the US appear convinced of the same thing.

... ... ...

Simes (Дмитрий Саймс), son of Jewish dissidents expelled from the Soviet Union to the US in 1978, is the Uriah Heep of Russian-American advisors, ingratiating themselves to both sides and making a living out of obsequious intermediation. He was Richard Nixon's factotum when the disgraced president visited Moscow. Nixon died in 1994 leaving Simes his think-tank as an inheritance. Its motto is "America's Voice for Strategic Realism". Kissinger is the honorary chairman , succeeding the American International Group (AIG) fraudster Hank Greenberg.

visitor , July 25, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Helmer provides a wealth of background about people and their role, institutions and practices. It is the kind of information that puts things in quite a different light -- and it turns out to be intriguing.

Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a serious way (gifts that should have been laden with personal symbolism for Kushner, sending that high-powered Gorkov banker, letting the ambassador pester Kushner for meetings). All for naught, due to spectacularly poor assessment of the other party by the Russians, and a clueless Trump team (with Kushner supremely ignorant of his supposedly cherished Eastern-European Jewish heritage).

The picture of that milieu full of go-betweens, cats' paws, and assorted parasites is not pretty. Contrarily to the often agape descriptions of "Putin's regime", the Russians appear to have been rather incompetent in that specific occurrence.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm

Creatures from the Swamp.

witters , July 25, 2017 at 5:52 pm

"Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a serious way" – Well, I think the dirt on offer was of the wrong kind, no?
Funny you got here first "Visitor".

different clue , July 25, 2017 at 9:06 pm

Somebody is always first by definition. There was always a mad rush to be the "Me first commenter number One!" over at James Klunster's blog, for example.

Bill Smith , July 25, 2017 at 12:29 pm

"reveals just how ignorant Kushner, his legal and other advisors are of Russia"

It is a big deal that Kushner didn't know the proper spelling of the town his grandparents came from? Heck, I don't even know the name of the town my grandparents came from – much less how to spell it.

Interesting point on Mexico and Israel / collusion

For better or worse I think there are more US citizens who know who Bibi is and not many who know the nickname of the King of Jordan.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm

1. I've come across the nickname Bibi so many times and I am only a casual reader of mainstream news.

Perhaps it is that many people in the mainstream media who are 'personal friends' of Bibi.

2. You know your grandparents home town either when they sat down with you and showed it to you on a map with its English spelling on an American map, or an old map with unknown words on it (a Belarussian one maybe), or they talked about it many times, so that you know, but only know how to say it (however imperfectly). Then, when it came for you to write it down the first time (or may not have to the first time, but the first time someone more familiar with the area reads it), you didn't get the spelling exactly right, and even confused it with any town.

Jamie , July 25, 2017 at 1:49 pm

I think the stupidity is anyone on the left buying into this fake McCarthyite Russia scare -- just because a racketeering war criminal lost the election. For one, Hillary took naked bribes from Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1

And the Podesta Group, founded by John Podesta, took money from Russia's largest bank, Sherbank, just last year, to lobby for a lessening of sanctions:

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F137350&year=2016s

Secondly, Hillary's post election pronouncements were absurd and contradictory to DNC talking points:

"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were
connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."

– Crooked Hillary

"I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians."

– Crooked Hillary

Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy, it makes the Bush WMD report look like the gold standard:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/

cj51 , July 25, 2017 at 9:04 pm

I won't reciprocate and call you stupid Jamie but you do seem ignorant of the facts:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
I thought this was well known by now.

and
"Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy "
regardless of the fact that all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack DNC.
google "Russia hacked DNC".

likbez , July 25, 2017 at 10:08 pm

IMHO the person who cites snopes is clearly a Hillary supporter.

As for

"all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack DNC. Google "Russia hacked DNC"

that's a myth propagated by Hillary camp. There were handpicked analysts from three agencies who did the hatchet job as they were ordered to.

This is a recipe from Sharp's textbook ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12522848 ).

Such dirty tricks is how "color revolutions" are done in xUSSR space and ME, my Hillary-supporting friend.

Now it is the USA turn ;-)

Tomonthebeach , July 25, 2017 at 6:09 pm

I think that the average American reading this article would half-way through roll their eyes and say this is so micro nit-picky that there is no there there.

Arizona Slim , July 25, 2017 at 6:36 pm

That was my impression too.

Cujo359 , July 25, 2017 at 8:58 pm

No kidding. My summary of the first objection: "Kushner would certainly known that his grandfather was from Novafreakingrad, Ukraine, not Novafrakingrad, Russia if the idiot hadn't realized he was reading the wrong cyrillic alphabet."

Or something like that. I'm usually interested in trivia, but this strained my limit to the breaking point. Like Bill Smith said in his comment above, most of us would be hard pressed to know what country our forbears came from, let alone what city. I think if this is the dumbest thing Kushner writes or says while he's working for the White House, he'll be the best Director of the Office of American Innovation evah – even if every other President had at least two of them.

clarky90 , July 25, 2017 at 6:19 pm

God forbid that we talk to the Russians! Oh my. Far better to start a nuclear war that ultimately involves all of the nuclear powers, even the North Koreans. Then we can solve climate change by gifting the planet back to the extremophiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

Shake and bake. A billion years from now, Earth will be covered with multitudinous expressions of life.

Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5 years!

likbez , July 25, 2017 at 10:08 pm

"God forbid that we talk to the Russians!"

Military industrial complex needs your money my friend. Nothing personal. This is strictly business :-)

"Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5 years!"

The last thing MIC cares is what millions of Americans, who elected Trump, want.

Temporarily Sane , July 25, 2017 at 6:24 pm

If the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ostensibly on a fact finding mission re the Trump administration's alleged collusion with Russian government officials and business people, take their assignment seriously they could use Helmer's brisk, no-nonsense just the facts ma'am approach as a template for their proceedings. The key word being "if"

Reading the American and European press it's striking how the reporting on countries in the 'axis of MIC designated evildoers' is almost always grossly, or hilariously, depending on your disposition, reductionist. While Western countries have a complex and multilayered system of government administration the "evil" countries are ruled by bad dudes with one name (North Korea's Kim Jong-un excepted) – Putin, Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi – who have absolute control over civilians military alike. It really is a South Parkesque view of the world. One can imagine a Putin or Assad grimly overseeing a trembling clerk issuing licenses at a provincial DMV, because Leader Knows Best of course.

Back in the real world this cartoonish dumbing down means every action – real, alleged or made up – the West doesn't like is traced back to The Leader. If a military unit goes nuts and slaughters a bunch of non-combatants , a nasty but not uncommon occurrence in wartime, it must be because The Leader ordered it. The Syrian Arab Army, to name one example, becomes "Assad's Army" and is composed of "soldiers loyal to Bashar al-Assad". The media would never talk about a Western, or "allied" army like this.

In the transcript Helmer cites, Gorkov's gifts to Kushner, something that might only be an innocent overlooking of protocol, can easily be spun in such a way that it becomes part of that evil rascal Putin's ploy to influence an American president. That's why these committees and hearings are a joke that belong in a low-budget sequel to Dr. Strangelove. Every person with a functioning brain knows there is a double-standard at play here. Even the maniacal partisan nutjobs agitating for Cold War 2.0 would have to admit this if logic and reason still have any meaning.

likbez , July 25, 2017 at 10:21 pm
Demonization of Putin is very profitable. This new round of McCarthyism enforced on the country proved to be the strategy chosen by neoliberal elite to return Dems to power and suppress populists within the party. Smash critique of neoliberalism equating them with Russian agents, who are trying to undermine the state.

There were rumors that original McCarthyism campaign partially was designed to suppress "leaks" about export of nazy scientist and spies in the USA after WWII that Communists and Trotskyites tried to expose.

rps , July 25, 2017 at 8:17 pm

Talk about a nothing burger about Kushner and Russia other than his aficionado to be Bibi's US puppet-in-law. If Trump has any Russian connections its through his first wife Ivana Trump. According to wikipedia, Ivana Trump nee Zelníčková was born February 20, 1949 in the Moravian town of Zlín, Czechoslovakia. From 1948 to 1990, Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet bloc. Donald Jr speaks fluent Czech.

Now the Clintons Russian connection of selling and buying 'Merica uranium/speechifer/foundation grab bag of goodies makes the Trump Russian investigation look like its run by a whole buncha nut job congress critters who fell off the turnip truck conned into playing a shell game.

[Jul 25, 2017] Color revolution against Trump was planned in Clinton circles with Soros participation by Michael Sainato

Notable quotes:
"... The Hill ..."
"... Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing. ..."
"... TheLos Angeles Times ..."
"... Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--." ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

Harris' meetings with Clinton's donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump Resistance; Politico reported that the hearings regarding Trump's connections to Russia have enabled the Democratic Party to frame her as Trump's most aggressive critic. In response to one of the hearings she was involved in, she launched the slogan "courage not courtesy." However, despite this catchy slogan, Harris has historically lacked the courage to hold her donors accountable when they have broken the law.

The nomination of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin provoked criticisms over his tenure as CEO of OneWest Bank. In 2013, California prosecutors claimed to have discovered over 1,000 foreclosure law violations, but the California Attorney General's office failed to file any action against the bank. At the time, Kamala Harris was California's attorney general. Many questioned why Harris didn't take any action given the evidence her office uncovered.

"We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it's a decision my office made," Harris told The Hill . "We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us."

Harris' vague defense is insufficient. The Democratic Party has branded her as a leader of the Trump Resistance without addressing why Harris avoided a criminal investigation that involved donors to her campaign.

In 2011, Mnuchin's wife at the time, Heather Mnuchin, gave $8,750 to Harris' 2011 campaign. OneWest Bank donated $6,500 to Harris' 2011 election. Heather Mnuchin also donated $850 to Harris' 2014 election for California attorney general.

In 2014, the Center for American Progress graded California's campaign donor recusal laws a "C." The state's lax laws allowed Harris to decide not to recuse herself from deciding whether or not to prosecute OneWest Bank.

Mnuchin donated to multiple Republicans' campaigns in 2016, but Harris was the only Democrat he donated to .

Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing.

In 2011, Harris' former aide Lenore Anderson was hired as campaign manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, which was financed by Soros' Open Society Foundations. In 2014, TheLos Angeles Times reported, "The organization operates under the umbrella of a San Francisco-based nonprofit clearinghouse, which effectively shields its donor list and financial operations from public view." The report cited that since 2012 Soros had led a four-year, $16 million campaign to change California criminal policy, which Harris was deeply involved in as California attorney general. Lenore Anderson also led Vote Safe, another Soros' funded organization.

In 2014, Soros and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson sold OneWest for $3.4 billion. In 2015, Soros donated the maximum amount to Harris' Senate campaign. Also in 2015, Harris spoke at Soros' 2020 Vision Conference in San Francisco with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and at Soros' Democracy Alliance Conference .

This background information on Harris' relationship to her donors provides context as to why the Democratic establishment is rallying behind her. However, any politician that doesn't hold corporate and special interests accountable only results in more corruption.

Since Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss to Donald Trump , her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the failing party.

Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--."

On July 15, Page Six reported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons.

Many figures in Clinton's inner circle attended, including Clinton's 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also attended a separate luncheon hosted by one of Clinton's top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.

[Jul 25, 2017] Analysis: Slow leak of Russia news flooding White House

This is a well financed intelligence operation against the President. Color revolution in other words. And MSM (including AP with disgusting articles like the one below) is the key part of the conspiracy.
Notable quotes:
"... The day-after-day drip-drip-drip of revelations over the past week about Donald Trump Jr.'s contact with the Russian lawyer in 2016 underscores the White House's inability to shake off the Russia story and close the book on a narrative that casts a shadow over Trump's presidency. ..."
"... The firestorm over Don Jr.'s emails has been a frustrating distraction during a stretch in which some White House advisers believed they were finding their footing. Trump's allies also were heartened by his trips to Europe, believing that his speech saluting national pride in Poland was a high point of his presidency and that he appeared statesman-like during a whirlwind visit to Paris. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | msn.com

... ... ...

The day-after-day drip-drip-drip of revelations over the past week about Donald Trump Jr.'s contact with the Russian lawyer in 2016 underscores the White House's inability to shake off the Russia story and close the book on a narrative that casts a shadow over Trump's presidency. No matter how presidential Trump may have looked on his back-to-back trips to Europe in recent days, the persistent questions about connections between Trump's team and Russia prevent him from savoring a public relations victory and building momentum for his stalled legislative agenda.

"No successful crisis management model works the way they are doing things," said Lanny Davis, who worked as special counsel to President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings. "If your mission is to control a story or try to end a story, you need to tell it early, tell it all and tell it yourself."

Trump Jr.'s account of his Trump Tower meeting has seemingly changed on an almost daily basis. At first, the meeting was said to be about a Russian adoption program. Then, it was to hear information about campaign rival Hillary Clinton. Finally, Trump Jr. was forced to release emails -- mere moments before The New York Times planned to do so -- that revealed he had told an associate that he would "love" Russia's help in obtaining negative details about the Democratic nominee.

Even the number of people who attended the meeting has changed. On Friday, a prominent Russian-American lobbyist told The Associated Press that he, too, had been part of the discussion.

Each revelation, no matter how small, has been seized upon by Democrats and dissected in detail on cable news.

Davis is credited with helping to steer the Clinton White House through a series of investigations, allowing the president to focus on his agenda while the lawyer shouldered the burden of dumping bad news and keeping West Wing staffers in lockstep in their response. He doesn't see a central figure doing that for Trump, and believes the president would be well-served to appoint a lawyer within the White House, instead of using a web of external attorneys.

Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, who also attended the June 2016 meeting, have retained attorneys separate from those hired by the president.

"They need to have one lawyer get every person in one room and figure out who knows what. No more surprises," said Davis, who favors proactively releasing any new findings. "The facts are coming out anyway, only question is whether they come out all at once or a little bit in a time."

The firestorm over Don Jr.'s emails has been a frustrating distraction during a stretch in which some White House advisers believed they were finding their footing. Trump's allies also were heartened by his trips to Europe, believing that his speech saluting national pride in Poland was a high point of his presidency and that he appeared statesman-like during a whirlwind visit to Paris.

But behind the scenes, a group of Trump aides gathered in a cabin on the presidential aircraft flying home from Germany last weekend to begin preparing for the initial fallout from Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting. And then just six days later, as Air Force One was returning from France, more news was breaking about Trump Jr.'s shifting account of the meeting, again launching a bad news cycle and straining the credibility of the president's defense team.

[Jul 25, 2017] John McCain: Homo Americanus

John McCain waked on Trump ouster more then any other Republican senator. Despite the fact that Trump campaigned for his reelection. He might be the the one who ordered British dossier on Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes. ..."
"... McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer > , • Website July 25, 2017 at 4:31 am GMT

We cannot allow this great website to be stained with a tribute to one of the worst Americans in our history. Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several accounts ("The Nightingale's Song", for example) he only got into the Naval Academy for a free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and should have been kicked out several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Vietnam, and getting captured is not heroic.

What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating allowing him to collect some $36,000 a year, tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000 a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement, while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.

McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.

I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes.

McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor, a rare good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.

His Senate career began as he profited off the savings and loan scandal (providing cover for fraudster Keating). McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. Despite his recent illness , he was quick to denounce Trump when he ended American support for mass terrorism in Syria.

John McCain supported the slaughter of millions of people on Earth, with the loss of thousands of American lives, and a trillion dollars wasted on pointless military adventures. How can any decent person mourn his demise?

[Jul 24, 2017] Bill making it a federal crime to support BDS sends shockwaves through progressive community

Notable quotes:
"... But now, a group of 43 senators -- 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats -- wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison . ..."
"... The bill's co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate's more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. ..."
"... The likes of Schiff have "high reputations" because they do the bidding of elites in promoting the interventionist and militarist foreign policies that serve the interests of foreign powers and of minority and other lobby groups. So much for the "liberals" as a supposed anti-establishment force. ..."
Jul 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

There is only one story in the news, for followers of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and that is Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Grim's report at the Intercept yesterday on new legislation in the Congress that would criminalize support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

The bill is such a crude example of overreach by the Israel lobby that it is sure to backfire on its supporters as Greenwald and Grim's report ricochets around the Democratic Party:

But now, a group of 43 senators -- 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats -- wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison .

The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda , identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year:

The bill's co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate's more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington.

Randal, July 21, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT

Adam Schiff is worthy of special mention, as David Bromwich points out to me. "He is among the scores of obedient Democrats co-sponsoring the bill. Schiff has a high reputation in liberal circles, but he voted for the Iraq war, supported the Saudi intervention in Yemen, said the assassination of Qaddafi was 'an end to the first chapter of another popular revolution,' and approved of Trump's bombing of Syria.

On foreign policy he is a believer in the conventional wisdom of the Cold War and the War on Terror, that's all; but his opinions have taken on an outsize importance since he is now routinely accepted as the party's outstanding authority on Russia. He knows Russia about as well as he knew Iraq and Libya."

The likes of Schiff have "high reputations" because they do the bidding of elites in promoting the interventionist and militarist foreign policies that serve the interests of foreign powers and of minority and other lobby groups. So much for the "liberals" as a supposed anti-establishment force.

hyperbola, July 21, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

So Gillibrand was bludgeoned into sponsoring anti-American, police-state legislation by the lobby. The rest seem to be the usual suspects – primary loyalty to a foreign country/sect.

Controversy Over Prominent BDS Activist Linda Sarsour Reaches New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/04/26/controversy-over-prominent-bds-activist-linda-sarsour-reaches-new-york-senator-kirsten-gillibrand/

Jewish leaders and pro-Israel activists have expressed concern over a contribution to Time Magazine by New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that praised Linda Sarsour – a Palestinian-American political activist and vocal advocate for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel.

In a short piece accompanying the magazine's "100 most influential people" list for 2017, Gillibrand paid tribute to "four extraordinary women -- Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour" for organizing the Women's March on Washington, DC on January 21 ..

rec1man, July 22, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

Here is why BDS wont work, will never work

Israel is rapidly diversifying its trade with India and China, both of which are growing segments of world economy

Narendra Modi of the BJP supports Israel screwing the Palestinians due to shared enemy of islam.
When he visited Israel last month, he didnt even visit Palestinian Authority and instead visited Holocaust museum

41% of Israeli defense exports go to India

The only people interested in BDS are muslims and leftist liberals ; as Muslim immigrants do more terrorism and no-go areas and mass rapes in Eurabia, there is less and less public support for BDS bcos the public supports anyone who hits back at islam

lavoisier, Website July 22, 2017 at 11:27 am GMT

The most disturbing aspect of this story is the fact that so many of our elected representatives are willing to pass a law that is clearly a violation of all that this nation supposedly treasures -- free speech and freedom of conscience. I know, I know that the Zionists are behind this mischief. But my God our leaders are traitorous scum!

What has happened to our nation?

I hope that all the blue pilled Americans realize the depth of depravity necessary for our so called leaders to craft such legislation and to support it.

Perhaps they might wake up and realize that America–the land of the free and home of the brave–is long gone. Then they might do something to try and get it back.

Seamus Padraig, July 24, 2017 at 12:30 am GMT

@rec1man

Shalom, Bibi.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 24, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT

I recall a comedy film from the 1980s with Robin Williams on a Caribbean island describing the constitution there as being "written in pencil". That now seems to apply to the USA. How could such an obvious breach of the First Amendment even be considered? It seems that a sort of primary loyalty to a foreign country has metastasized to the point that free speech itself is under threat. Once a law like this is enacted, the final shreds of legitimacy of the yankee state which, after all, claims its legitimacy by following constitutional legal forms, will have vanished.

I should add that the same people demanding this law, which is at the behest of provable foreign interests, are many of the same ones propagating the phony propaganda anti-Russian conspiracy theory. Real treason and sedition seem to be the order of the day to these people.

[Jul 22, 2017] Defence of Marx as for his prediction of future is very close to the sort of defense that most MMT theorists deploy when critics decry the possible negative consequences of "adopting" their theory. "We are not proposing, merely describing" is the refrain.

Jul 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Roland , July 21, 2017 at 1:35 pm

I enjoyed this post, Outis, even though I'm going to be a bit critical of it. I am pleased to just to be able to talk about this stuff from time to time.

In Asimov's original Foundation stories, Hari Seldon devised an actual plan for the future history of an empire.

But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use to develop hypotheses.

Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about it?

So why would Marx's theory of class struggle alter the course of history?

If one reads the Communist Manifesto , one finds that the work is almost entirely devoted to the bourgeoisie and to the history of capitalism.

The bourgeoisie, after centuries of struggle against the nobility, the clergy, and the petty bourgeoisie, at length became the dominant class in society. Obviously the bourgeoisie didn't need Marx to help them do that!

Marx hypothesizes that for as long as the bourgeois class is what it is, and does what it does, a class struggle will result in which proletarians will assume power.

Marx points out that the vast majority of the job of obliterating private property is actually being performed by the bourgeois class themselves. Marx points out that most of the job of reducing differences between nations is actually done by the bourgoisie. Marx points that it's the bourgeoisie who dissolve traditional family institutions.

But that's observation and extrapolation, not a plan. For a revolutionary programme of the proletariat, Marx only offers a short list of points to consider.

Little of the Manifesto is devoted to the subject of the proletariat. That's not surprising, since proletarian history had scarcely begun.

For the sake of argument, ask yourself how much could one write about bourgeois history, or bourgeois political prospects, in the 12th century? At that time the Occidental bourgeoisie was in its political infancy. Few would imagine that these harried, oppressed, vulgar little burghers would eventually become the dominant class in society. I mean, the whole notion would seem "not even wrong."

It was difficult for Marx, and it is still difficult for us, to contemplate what a society would look like, or what life would feel like, if the proletariat were the politically and culturally dominant class. One only gets tantalizing glimpses, half-fanciful, such as Orwell's first impression of Barcelona.

To extend my 12th century bourgeois analogy, it would be like trying to envision Planet Bourgeois, based on a day trip to 12th century Venice.

Marx does offer brief critiques of those socialist programmes which do not focus on the proletarian class.

For our present purposes, the most interesting of them is Marx's anticipation of the welfare state, which he refers to as "bourgeois socialism."

For decades after WWII, many in the developed nations thought that the welfare states had solved the worst problems of capitalism. I used to be one of them. But it took Marx just a single page of the Communist Manifesto to raise, evaluate, and dismiss the idea.

Ulysses , July 21, 2017 at 2:14 pm

"But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use to develop hypotheses.
Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about it?"

Well said! This is very close to the sort of defense that most MMT theorists deploy– when critics decry the possible negative consequences of "adopting" their theory. "We are not proposing, merely describing" is the refrain. I myself have never been a Marxist, yet I find the historical analysis of some Marxist scholars quite perceptive. In my former life as a medievalist I often relied heavily on excellent work, authored by conservative Catholics, without ever feeling the urge to become one myself!

Oregoncharles , July 22, 2017 at 12:50 am

"We are not proposing, merely describing"
Actually, based on what I've seen about it here on NC, that is a misleading half-truth. It's true that the theory itself is descriptive, and I think true on its face, though I might quibble with some emphases.

OTOH, the theory is Keynesian: in most examples, at least that we see, it comes with policy prescriptions – in particular, deficit spending to stimulate the economy (environmentally a losing proposition) and serve human needs.

What makes the theory interesting and new is that fiat currency, in the modern sense, hasn't existed very long. I remember when Nixon (a Republican!) took us off the gold standard – in the 70s, wasn't it. That was when the shackles came off. So people are still figuring out what it all means.

I suspect that the biggest objection to the theory is that it would delegitimize, especially, taxation, which depends on largely voluntary compliance. Would people go along with it if they really thought it didn't "pay for the government," but instead served to regulate the amount of money in circulation, plus some useful social engineering?

I don't think so.

[Jul 18, 2017] The USA revived old tactic of overthrowing the government: using provocateurs

Notable quotes:
"... Since April the opposition tries to dislodge the government by instigating a regime change by force. Its protests and street fights with the police are led by violent, militarized gangs : ..."
"... This is not just by chance a similar development as was seen during the U.S. instigated color revolutions by force in Libya, Ukraine and Syria. Para-military forces hiding behind "peaceful protesters" attack police, military and civil government institutions to provoke an escalation towards a civil war. ..."
"... It is obvious that the opposition in Venezuela is heavily supported by the various regime change institutions of the United States. Some of its operatives have deep ties with DEA and the CIA U.S. media is -as usual- completely on the side of the U.S. regime change program. It has long agitated against the socialist government of Venezuela ..."
"... Venezuela is a deeply split society and the business class was consistently in the opposition. By the way of contrast, Russian oligarchs never developed "class solidarity", and Putin/Medvedev policy was to support those who support them. Sanctions on Russia have a helpful effect of restricting foreign investment opportunities. ..."
"... With hostile business class and smallish economy Venezuelans had hard time running the economy, additionally the impression is that Bolivarians just do not know much about it. ..."
"... Trump's campaign promise of ending the regime change policy was proven to be a lie, with his attitude differing little from the Neocons and Neoliberals toward that oil-rich but still impoverished nation. ..."
"... How can you possibly post a guardian link to prove your assertion about the economic mess supposedly caused by Chavez and Maduro? Don't you know that the MSM is working against the Chavismo since almost before his very birth? Venezuela is a rerun of Chile 1989 and Egypt 2013, where shortages are produced in order to make the masses angry and ready for regime change. ..."
"... is anyone handing out cookies yet?? wheres nuland when she has a role to play here? ..."
"... It is safe to say that whatever the leader of country in the US cross hairs is allegedly guilty of, the US replacement will actually be that and worse. It is not about corruption, tyranny, whatever. It is purely about subservience to US corporate wishes. ..."
"... I live is Spain and am surprised how the local media follows the Gladio line. Thought it was just the Yanks that were bonkers, but whether its Syria, Ukraine, Trump or Venezuela we're all good NATO vassals. ..."
"... The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein that goes a long way to explain how the money boys have R2Ped all of South America over the past 50+ years....and continue to hold debt over the country's heads like all the rest of the countries of the world by now......sigh ..."
"... And across the Caribbean Sea there are two countries where populists government were successfully removed, Honduras and Haiti. From the point of view of our media lords, the less is reported from there the better. ..."
"... Constantly having to fight for your freedom is very exhausting where it seems to take a special type of people/culture to prevail--why do you think the Outlaw US Empire plans to continue to hang-out in Syraq? It's willing to bet the people don't have what it takes to ensure their freedom in the longterm. ..."
"... Whenever there is a chance that a government might do something of value for its common citizens, the US is ready to eliminate the threat. Austerity for the commons. Socialism is only for Corporations and other billionaires. ..."
"... The "Corporate Empire" will tolerate no other system. Especially one that works well for the commoners... ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The U.S. supports the right-wing opposition in Venezuela against the socialist government of President Maduro. Since April the opposition tries to dislodge the government by instigating a regime change by force. Its protests and street fights with the police are led by violent, militarized gangs :

Venezuela's ongoing street protests are increasingly looking like outright warfare. As security forces shoot rubber bullets, tear-gas canisters and sometimes live rounds at the churning crowds, increasingly restive mobs are responding with lethal slingshots, homemade mortars and Molotov cocktails.

This week, seven National Guard members were injured in Caracas when a roadside bomb exploded as they drove by on motorcycles.

Leading the opposition shock-troops are loose-knit groups of young men and women that have names like The Templars, The Warriors and The Arcadias. Collectively, they're known as the Chamos de la Resistencia or, roughly, the Youth Resistance.

This is not just by chance a similar development as was seen during the U.S. instigated color revolutions by force in Libya, Ukraine and Syria. Para-military forces hiding behind "peaceful protesters" attack police, military and civil government institutions to provoke an escalation towards a civil war. Last week the opposition in Venezuela announced that today is the "zero day" for another violent coup attempt against President Maduro:

The fugitive police pilot who allegedly stole a helicopter and used it to attack Venezuela's Supreme Court has appeared at an opposition rally in the capital, Caracas, attendees tell CNN.

Oscar Perez, an officer in the country's investigative police force, addressed the gathering, urging the opposition to continue protesting.
...
" A general walkout for July 18, walkout with no return . The zero-hour will start on Tuesday. The referendum we'll do it, with dignity, we'll be in the street defending the people."

The date was confirmed yesterday:

Venezuelan opposition leaders have called for their supporters to escalate street protests and support a 24-hour national strike later this week after more than 7.1 million people rejected a government plan to rewrite the constitution.
...
A coalition of some 20 opposition parties assembled in its headquarters Monday to call for a "zero hour" campaign of civil disobedience in the two weeks leading to the government vote.

On Sunday the opposition held a private poll in which less people attended than the opposition had hoped for. No results but the number of attendees was announced:

The opposition released only turnout numbers Sunday night, not tallies of responses to those questions, although virtually all who voted were believed to have answered "yes" to the central rejection of the constitutional rewrite.

There are some 19 million registered voters in Venezuela. A seven million turnout for a private poll, if real, is significant but neither decisive nor relevant. The hiding of the results lets one assume that the answers to the poll questions were not in favor of the opposition's plan.

It is difficult to ascertain what the real opinion of people in Venezuela is. Polls in the country are traditionally skewed. Maduro's economic polices, restricted by falling oil prices, sabotage by rich im- and exporters and U.S. sanction, was not successful. But the 2015 National Assembly vote won by the opposition was more a protest vote against the economic problems than a vote for the opposition's vague program .

It is obvious that the opposition in Venezuela is heavily supported by the various regime change institutions of the United States. Some of its operatives have deep ties with DEA and the CIA U.S. media is -as usual- completely on the side of the U.S. regime change program. It has long agitated against the socialist government of Venezuela.

An official Trump statement on Venezuela released yesterday is noticeable for its lack of facts:

Yesterday, the Venezuelan people again made clear that they stand for democracy, freedom, and rule of law. Yet their strong and courageous actions continue to be ignored by a bad leader who dreams of becoming a dictator.

The United States will not stand by as Venezuela crumbles. If the Maduro regime imposes its Constituent Assembly on July 30, the United States will take strong and swift economic actions.

Would Trump write a similar statement about the will of the "American people" if Democrats held a private poll against him with an assured multi-million strong turnout?

The Maduro government has called for a July 30 vote to elect members of an upcoming constitutional assembly. There is nothing "imposed" with that. The opposition will try to sew chaos in the streets up to that date and likely has planned for some culmination point of action.

The government has so far reacted passively to the violent protests. The police protects some government buildings and removes some road blocking barricades. But no arrest wave or more assertiveness for government control has been ordered. One wonders at what point such measures will become inevitable.

Comments (35)

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 18, 2017 10:36:50 AM | 6

Two of the problems with this latest Gene Sharp-inspired, CIA & State Dept-supported 'non-violent' regime change plot are:

1. It's worked like a dream umpteen times in the past thanks to the complicity and outright lies of the Western MSM.

2. If it follows the tr-r-aditional Gene Sharp Formula then Day Zero will be marked by the introduction of the CIA's Hired Guns to the 'non-violent' nature of the protests to date. The Western MSM will dutifully exaggerate the scope and scale of the bloodshed and blame it on Maduro. And ppl in the West will dutifully, and gullibly, agree that the best way to help Venezuelans is to impose an AmeriKKKan Military Solution aimed at destroying Venezuela's civilian infrastructure and thereby creating a Refugee Crisis in Venezuela and its neighbors.

Piotr Berman | Jul 18, 2017 10:45:50 AM | 7
Venezuelan "socialists" call themselves Bolivarians and in terms of economic policies they could be classified as social democrats, they changed the distribution of the national income using oil revenue. One can appreciate Russian economic policies by comparing with Venezuela (or Nigeria?).

Venezuela is a deeply split society and the business class was consistently in the opposition. By the way of contrast, Russian oligarchs never developed "class solidarity", and Putin/Medvedev policy was to support those who support them. Sanctions on Russia have a helpful effect of restricting foreign investment opportunities. Mildly corrupt capitalist oligarchy can function OK if the capitalists invest back at home -- China is the premier example. Unbridled kleptocracy is combined with capital flight that hollows the economy, I would put Nigeria and Angola as premier examples, one could add Egypt and Ukraine.

With hostile business class and smallish economy Venezuelans had hard time running the economy, additionally the impression is that Bolivarians just do not know much about it. Right now, I would not criticize "the meek actions of Maduro". Avoiding or minimizing bloodshed is a decent thing to do in itself. Additionally, a measured reaction can be politically astute, this is a democracy after all, the times are hard, the government has to make a case that the opposition is even worse, and without military or police rebellion they will weather the crisis and become stronger.

karlof1 | Jul 18, 2017 10:56:48 AM | 9
Greg Wilpert runs the Venezuela Analysis website, observing Venezuela's politics since the rise of Chavez, https://venezuelanalysis.com/ His recent essay was republished by CounterPunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/17/time-for-the-international-left-to-take-a-stand-on-venezuela/

The Outlaw US Empire has meddled in Venezuelan politics for decades, and its actions are at the root of today's problems. Chavez made a very large mistake after the 2002 coup attempt failed -- he failed to prosecute its leaders. That failure also contributes mightily to today's problems, but it was -- again -- brought about at the instigation of the Outlaw US Empire.

Trump's campaign promise of ending the regime change policy was proven to be a lie, with his attitude differing little from the Neocons and Neoliberals toward that oil-rich but still impoverished nation. So far, the Chavistas have managed to stem the counter-revolutionary tide financed by the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals, for the so-called opposition is very much in the minority, which is why its opted for violence as it cannot win legitimately.

Nick | Jul 18, 2017 11:56:47 AM | 11
Wait, so the guy who took a helicopter & opened fire on a Courthouse is a free man and addressing crowds? Unbelievable. It's no wonder these Yank puppets are running riot and causing mayhem. Mind you, the Western media will immediately say Maduro is "violently crushing pro-democracy activists" as soon as he orders the police to go in hard, so he's between a rock and a hard place. As we saw in Ukraine though (Syria too), if you don't crush these fascists quickly, you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Pnyx | Jul 18, 2017 12:39:15 PM | 13
Willy2 10:00:22 AM | 4

How can you possibly post a guardian link to prove your assertion about the economic mess supposedly caused by Chavez and Maduro? Don't you know that the MSM is working against the Chavismo since almost before his very birth? Venezuela is a rerun of Chile 1989 and Egypt 2013, where shortages are produced in order to make the masses angry and ready for regime change.

Yes, as Petras stated again and again Chavez didn't change the fundamentals of the Venezuelan society. He probably was to shy to. The Venezuelan Sucker-Class proved again and again to have an equal fascistic mindset as their 'brothers' in Argentina and Chile. If they succeed there will be a mass slaughter. It will work out like in the Philippines where the president kills scores of people every day and nobody gives a damn.

james | Jul 18, 2017 1:03:46 PM | 14
thanks b.. many good comments.. @3 tobin and @11 nick - i agree with you..

is anyone handing out cookies yet?? wheres nuland when she has a role to play here?

Anonymous | Jul 18, 2017 3:26:11 PM | 17
It is safe to say that whatever the leader of country in the US cross hairs is allegedly guilty of, the US replacement will actually be that and worse. It is not about corruption, tyranny, whatever. It is purely about subservience to US corporate wishes.

The Venezulean chief economist states Venezuela's problems arise from sabotage, not socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk1qlKu_RJo

el sid | Jul 18, 2017 4:22:02 PM | 20
@ Ike 16

Was thinking the same here.

I live is Spain and am surprised how the local media follows the Gladio line. Thought it was just the Yanks that were bonkers, but whether its Syria, Ukraine, Trump or Venezuela we're all good NATO vassals.

Remember hearing the same thoughts here on MoA from a German reader about how there seemed to be more "diversity" of thought in American blogs/media than in his home country.

It goes to show you: we're all Occupied Territories.

Have a nice evening.

psychohistorian | Jul 18, 2017 5:01:25 PM | 23
I haven't read a shout out for The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein that goes a long way to explain how the money boys have R2Ped all of South America over the past 50+ years....and continue to hold debt over the country's heads like all the rest of the countries of the world by now......sigh

And to those that write that Chavez or Maduro should have just defeated the oligarchy, show me a country that has done so.....the China/Russia axis may be doing so but it is not clear yet.

We have an outdated and may kill us form of social structure that has the money boys and their families in charge for centuries resulting in the God of Mammon and riches for a few class system we live in. I hope humanity stands up and says to itself it can do better and then makes it happen.......we have the skills I believe but only lack the common vision and motivation.

Peter AU | Jul 18, 2017 5:19:09 PM | 24
I don't like Maduro's chances. Too many people willing to be US tools and Venezuela is in the US backyard so to speak.
Peter AU | Jul 18, 2017 5:26:13 PM | 25
If a violent colour revolution does not work, the US would most likely conduct a strike on the "horrible dictator who is killing his own people".
fast freddy | Jul 18, 2017 5:33:56 PM | 26
The US has removed many democratically-elected leaders by force. Whenever there is a chance that a government might do something of value for its common citizens, the US is ready to eliminate the threat. Austerity for the commons. Socialism is only for Corporations and other billionaires.

Expenses and Costs for Billionaires are socialized, while profits are privatized. Pick yourselves up by your own bootstraps and dream the American Dream. /s

Piotr Berman | Jul 18, 2017 5:51:11 PM | 28
While Brazil shares a long border with Venezuela, it is actually rather remote from regions with significant population. The only border that crosses reasonably populated areas is with Colombia, which according to Economists Intelligence Unit seems a shining example of democracy, compared with authoritarian Venezuela. Colombia is also the world leader in killing journalists and issuing credible death threats to journalists, issuing life insurance to labor organizers also seems a loosing line of business over there.

And across the Caribbean Sea there are two countries where populists government were successfully removed, Honduras and Haiti. From the point of view of our media lords, the less is reported from there the better.

karlof1 | Jul 18, 2017 5:52:06 PM | 29
Peter AU--

What's happening now is close to a re-run of 2001-2004 antics, albeit using somewhat different tactics similar to those of the Arab Spring and Ukrainian Maidan. The "opposition" consists of the same socio-economic players from 15 years earlier--essentially the younger generation brainwashed by opposition media and parental indoctrination.

If you take the time, you'll note all the rioting takes place in middle/upper middle-class neighborhoods--never in the many slums whose residents benefited from the uplifting policies instituted by Chavez et al.

What's waning is the revolutionary solidarity and zeal of the Chavistas from the early 2000s against the fact that the counter-revolutionary forces have very deep resources and are willing to wait since their bodies aren't actually on the line. Constantly having to fight for your freedom is very exhausting where it seems to take a special type of people/culture to prevail--why do you think the Outlaw US Empire plans to continue to hang-out in Syraq? It's willing to bet the people don't have what it takes to ensure their freedom in the longterm.

There are two nations where the forces of Reaction dwell--The Outlaw US Empire and its vassal the UK. France could be included, but it isn't nearly as important or have the same clout. For Peace to ever be established on this planet, the forces of Reaction must be euthanized--eradicated--as they are a pestilence far worse than any insect or rodent.

ben | Jul 18, 2017 5:57:04 PM | 30
ff @ 26 said:

" Whenever there is a chance that a government might do something of value for its common citizens, the US is ready to eliminate the threat. Austerity for the commons. Socialism is only for Corporations and other billionaires."

Thanks for that ff. Absolute truth is always worth repeating.

The "Corporate Empire" will tolerate no other system. Especially one that works well for the commoners...

[Jul 18, 2017] The Real Crimes of Russiagate by Patrick J. Buchanan

Any person who sites neocons like Mike Morell is very suspicious, to say the least. Pat Buchanan is no exception, for now on...
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope. ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. ..."
"... The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. ..."
"... Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo. ..."
"... He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was "no." As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."

Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full Pinocchio for four days.

And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they want it -- Russiagate.

This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.

Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.

Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S. government designed to damage this president.

Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn.

An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled Israeli intelligence sources and methods.

Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law. Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek. First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.

The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly. Consider the original Russiagate offense. Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this "Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?

The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders. If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they publish the fruits of that crime? Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1?

Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality.

Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted.

Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.

And thus does democracy die in darkness.

Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?

Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?

Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.

People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

NoseytheDuke > , July 18, 2017 at 5:27 am GMT

Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.

Priss Factor > , Website July 18, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT

There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.

1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists.

But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

vinteuil > , July 18, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT

Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's.

"Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks."

What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?

The Alarmist > , July 18, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians.

Randal > , July 18, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.

Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

Gg Mo > , July 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

Gg Mo > , July 18, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT

Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse. At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.

[Jul 18, 2017] 'Boomerangski' Returns To Bite The Clintons Zero Hedge

Jul 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
'Boomerangski' Returns To Bite The Clintons Tyler Durden Jul 17, 2017 7:32 PM 0 SHARES Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

The strenuous effort of "Resistance" passengers in the Limousine-of-State to shove Donald Trump out of the driver's seat continues into what would normally be the news-wasteland of midsummer. Last week it was the smoking popgun of Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer purported (by British music promoter Rob Goldstein) to be associated with the "Russian Crown Prosecutor" (no such office in a country without a monarch).

The news caused the usual commotion among the very media mouthpieces who publish anti-Trump allegations as a staple for their "Resistance" readerships. By the way, this blog might be described as anti-Trump, too, in the sense that I did not vote for him and regularly inveigh against his antics as President - but neither is Clusterfuck Nation a friend of the Hillary-haunted Dem-Prog "Resistance," in case there's any confusion about where we stand. If anything, we oppose the entirety of the current political regime in our nation's capital, the matrix of rackets that is driving the aforementioned Limousine-of-State off the cliff of economic collapse. Just sayin'.

"Resistance" law professors, such as Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, were quick to holler "treason" over Junior's meet-up with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. Well, first of all, and not to put too fine a point on it, don't you have to be at war with another nation to regard any kind of consort as "treason?" Last time I checked, we were not at war with Russia - though it sure seems like persons and parties inside the Beltway would dearly like to make that happen. You can't call it espionage either, of course, because that would purport the giving of secret information, not the receiving of political gossip.

Remember, the "Resistance" is not going for impeachment, but rather Section 4 of the 25 th Amendment. That legal nicety makes for a very neat-and-clean surgical removal of a whack-job president, without all the cumbrous evidentiary baggage and pain-in-ass due process required by impeachment. All it requires is a consensus among a very small number of high officials, who then send a note to the leaders in both houses of congress stating that said whack-job president is a menace to the polity -- and out he goes, snippety-snip like a colorectal polyp, into the hazardous waste bag of history. And you're left with a nice clean asshole, namely Vice President Mike Pence.

Insofar as Pence appears to be a kind of booby-prize for the "Resistance," that fateful reach for the 25 th Amendment hasn't happened quite yet. It is hoped, I'm sure, that the incessant piling on of new allegations about "collusion" with the Russians will get the 25thers over the finish line and into the longed-for end zone dance.

More interestingly, though, the meme that has led people to believe that any contact between Russians and Americans is ipso facto nefarious vectors into the very beating heart of the "Resistance" itself: the Clintons.

How come the Clintons have not been asked to explain why -- as reported on The Hill blog -- Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give speech in Russia (surely he offered them something of value in exchange, pending the sure thing Hillary inaugural) ...

or what about the $2.35 million "contribution" that the Clinton Foundation received after Secretary of State Hillary allowed the Russians to buy a controlling stake in the Uranium One company, which owns 20 percent of US uranium supplies, with mines and refineries in Wyoming, Utah, and other states, as well as assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer?

Incidentally, the Clinton Foundation did not "shut down," as erroneously reported early this year. It was only its Global Initiative program that got shuttered. The $2.35 million is probably still rattling around in the Clinton Foundation's bank account.

Don't you kind of wonder what they did with it? I hope Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller wants to know.

nmewn -> 38BWD22 , Jul 17, 2017 7:50 PM

Patience Mr.Bearing, patience.

Susan Rice has implicated herself (and by extension Obama) in a felony. Comey has lied under oath and stolen government property. Lowrenta has commited obstruction of justice and the world now knows that Natalia V was given "a special visa" by the State Department... in June of 2016! ...in order to even be present at a meeting with Jr set up by an associate of FusionGPS one Ron Goldstone in which, a "former Soviet counter-intelligence officer" was present who also was allowed (even though the Alinsky press won't report it) to roam freely around the Obama WH in a group tour...cuz... RUSSIAN SPIES! ...lol.

Gardentoolnumber5 -> 38BWD22 , Jul 17, 2017 8:08 PM

"Something stinks..." Neocons

StarGate -> Jim in MN , Jul 17, 2017 5:35 PM

OBAMA White House played HOST to RUSSIAN associate of Russian Atty Natalia the same day as the Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016 - according to Obama's White House log. Natalia's translator, Samochornov was a contractor with Obama's State Dept. Per FBI insider Obama speaks Russian.

White House visitor log: http://white-house-logs.insidegov.com/l/73080195/Rinat-Akhmetshin#Detail...

drstrangelove73 -> FrozenGoodz , Jul 17, 2017 4:27 PM

Yeah,you missed 'The Russians are coming the Russians are coming'24/7 7 days a week for 8 months now and counting,with no proof yet of any wrongdoing whatsoever nor any explanation in concrete terms of exactly how those pesky Rooskies could possibly have 'meddled in our elections' let alone any proof of same. No,just morning 'til night 'the russians are coming the Russians are coming.The left has collectively lost its mind in a very public way.How any sentient being could any longer pay them any mind is a mystery to me

[Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

Highly recommended!
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly. The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
"... : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the battle for the soul of the American Right.

To be sure, Carlson rejects the term "neoconservatism," and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest Friday.

"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means. I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.

But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions to curry favor with the White House, keep up his ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow, I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But is this assessment fair?

Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies."

Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do it."

But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April 7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened. I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."

But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.

Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries. "You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person. Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country? It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast, sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.

On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision. "You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.

The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard , perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet. On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband, Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.

"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist stalwarts such as Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter than Pat Buchanan," he said last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.

Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency. He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy establishment").

Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government "may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued, "If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better."

Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, "

Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're talking about. None."

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

Image : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.

[Jul 17, 2017] A Russian Developer Helps Out the Kremlin on Occasion. Was He a Conduit to Trump by NEIL MacFARQUHAR

They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences agencies involved?
Jul 16, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from: The New York Times

MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.

That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water, a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.

A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular Far Eastern Federal University , some 70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.

Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed: a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including one in a Baltic swamp.

Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week, the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.

Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.

"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and publicist working for Emin.

While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.

Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.

When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats, diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.

In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov, a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump presidential campaign.

"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner, says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.

In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has been in that position since 2006.

In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.

That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.

Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital, and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.

Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.

Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.

It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.

"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann, noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.

In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given to the campaign.

Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."

The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.

For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.

He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.

He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.

What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.

Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.

"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm. "He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."

Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or posing with Robert De Niro at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.

Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs posted old pictures of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.

Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential complex "Manhattan."

In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.

The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.

Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project, including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.

"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably be in the construction phase today."

The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers of power in Russia.

In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic Union.

In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for example, building new border posts.

By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.

In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."

Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project, he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.

Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.

"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin. I have to make sacrifices."

Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things that you cannot turn down."

[Jul 17, 2017] Russias anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet eras by Michael Birnbaum

Is not this a blowback of Washington neocons organized Kiev coup d'état of February 22, 2014 ?
Neocons sowed the teeth of dragon. Now wait...
Notable quotes:
"... The anger is a challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking to reach out to a shrinking pool of friendly faces in Russia. ..."
"... The anti-Western anger stands to grow even stronger if President Obama decides to send lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian military, as he has been considering. The aim would be to "raise the cost" of any Russian intervention by making the Ukrainian response more lethal. But even some of Putin's toughest critics say they cannot support that proposal, since the cost is the lives of their nation's soldiers. ..."
"... "The United States is experimenting geopolitically, using people like guinea pigs," said Sergey Mikheev, director of the Kremlin-allied Center for Current Politics, on a popular talk show on the state-run First Channel last year. His accusations, drawn out by a host who said it was important to "know the enemy," were typical of the rhetoric that fills Russian airwaves. ..."
"... Soviet rhetoric was officially anti-Western, but it couldn't repress ordinary Russians' passion for the Beatles or their enthusiasm for getting news from jammed Voice of America broadcasts. Those positive feelings spilled over after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... But the list of perceived slights from the United States has long been building, particularly after the United States and NATO bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, in 1999. Then came the war in Iraq, NATO expansion and the Russia-Georgia conflict. Each time, there were smaller spikes of anti-American sentiment that receded as quickly as they emerged. ..."
"... The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else." ..."
"... Many Russians tapped into a deep-rooted resentment that after modeling themselves on the West following the breakup of the Soviet Union, they had experienced only hardship and humiliation in return. ..."
Mar 08, 2015 | The Washington Post

After a year in which furious rhetoric has been pumped across Russian airwaves, anger toward the United States is at its worst since opinion polls began tracking it. From ordinary street vendors all the way up to the Kremlin, a wave of anti-U.S. bile has swept the country, surpassing any time since the Stalin era, observers say.

The indignation peaked after the assassination of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov, as conspiracy theories started to swirl - just a few hours after he was killed - that his death was a CIA plot to discredit Russia. (On Sunday, Russia charged two men from Chechnya, and detained three others, in connection with Nemtsov's killing.)

There are drives to exchange Western-branded clothing for Russia's red, blue and white. Efforts to replace Coke with Russian-made soft drinks. Fury over U.S. sanctions. And a passionate, conspiracy-laden fascination with the methods that Washington is supposedly using to foment unrest in Ukraine and Russia.

The anger is a challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking to reach out to a shrinking pool of friendly faces in Russia. And it is a marker of the limits of their ability to influence Russian decision-making after a year of sanctions. More than 80 percent of Russians now hold negative views of the United States, according to the independent Levada Center, a number that has more than doubled over the past year and that is by far the highest negative rating since the center started tracking those views in 1988.

Nemtsov's assassination, the highest-profile political killing during Vladimir Putin's 15 years in power, was yet another brutal strike against pro-Western forces in Russia. Nemtsov had long modeled himself on Western politicians and amassed a long list of enemies who resented him for it.

The anti-Western anger stands to grow even stronger if President Obama decides to send lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian military, as he has been considering. The aim would be to "raise the cost" of any Russian intervention by making the Ukrainian response more lethal. But even some of Putin's toughest critics say they cannot support that proposal, since the cost is the lives of their nation's soldiers.

"The United States is experimenting geopolitically, using people like guinea pigs," said Sergey Mikheev, director of the Kremlin-allied Center for Current Politics, on a popular talk show on the state-run First Channel last year. His accusations, drawn out by a host who said it was important to "know the enemy," were typical of the rhetoric that fills Russian airwaves.

"They treat us all in the same way, threatening not only world stability but the existence of every human being on the planet," Mikheev said.

Soviet rhetoric was officially anti-Western, but it couldn't repress ordinary Russians' passion for the Beatles or their enthusiasm for getting news from jammed Voice of America broadcasts. Those positive feelings spilled over after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

But the list of perceived slights from the United States has long been building, particularly after the United States and NATO bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, in 1999. Then came the war in Iraq, NATO expansion and the Russia-Georgia conflict. Each time, there were smaller spikes of anti-American sentiment that receded as quickly as they emerged.

Putin cranked up the volume after protest movements in late 2011 and 2012, which he blamed on the State Department. It wasn't until last year, when the crisis started in Ukraine, that anti-Americanism spread even among those who once eagerly hopped on planes to Miami and Los Angeles.

Fed by the powerful antagonism on Russian federal television channels, the main source of news for more than 90 percent of Russians, ordinary people started to feel more and more disillusioned. The anger seems different from the fast-receding jolts of the past, observers say, having spread faster and wider.

The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else."

... ... ...

Many Russians tapped into a deep-rooted resentment that after modeling themselves on the West following the breakup of the Soviet Union, they had experienced only hardship and humiliation in return.

"Starting from about 1989, we completely reoriented toward the West. We looked at them as a future paradise. We expected that once we had done all that they demanded, we'd dance for them and they would finally hug and kiss us and we would merge in ecstasy," said Evgeny Tarlo, a member of Russia's upper house of parliament, on a Russian talk show last year. Instead, he said, the West has been trying to destroy Russia.

The anti-Americanism makes it harder for American culture to make inroads through its traditional means - soft-power routes such as movies, music and education. Last year, Russian policymakers ended a decades-old high school exchange program that offered their nation's best and brightest the chance to spend semesters at U.S. schools. Few Western artists now perform on Russian soil.

Western diplomats also say privately that they find themselves frozen out of speaking engagements and other opportunities to explain their countries' positions to Russian audiences. And Russians who work for local outposts of Western companies say their friends and neighbors increasingly question their patriotism.

... ... ...

Even McDonald's, long an embodiment of Russian dreams about the West, was targeted for supposed health violations in the fall. Some of its most prominent locations were forced to shut down temporarily. When they reopened, McDonald's started an advertising campaign emphasizing its local ties and its 25-year history in Russia, playing down the Golden Arches' global significance as a bright beacon of America.

Last week, one McDonald's billboard in the heart of Moscow read: "Made in Russia, for Russians."

Michael Birnbaum is The Post's Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.

[Jul 17, 2017] If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?

Notable quotes:
"... "Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. " ..."
"... "It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump. ..."
"... The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia. ..."
"... When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia investigation is a distraction. ..."
"... "I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area. ..."
"... Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue. ..."
"... And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University . ..."
"... More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class Americans. ..."
"... And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
"... Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters keep saying "give him a chance." ..."
"... "I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks, the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place." ..."
"... It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately 6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts in the air. ..."
"... "This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area." ..."
"... These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified as white on the 2010 census. ..."
"... Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general." ..."
"... And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true. People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation. ..."
"... "It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really is a swamp."" ..."
"... If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton? ..."
"... Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc? ..."
Jul 17, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , July 17, 2017 at 6:35 am

"Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. "

If they keep up their obsession with Russia – YES!

Also – relevant article, which shows that this "rural/Red State American consensus", apparently, keeps up, despite the constant propaganda barrage from the mainstream biased media. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vox is dye in the wool liberal outlet with handshakable agenda.

I asked Trump voters in Michigan about the Russia investigation. They said it's fake news.

"It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia.

When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia investigation is a distraction.

"I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area.

Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue.

And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University .

More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class Americans.

And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters keep saying "give him a chance."

"I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks, the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place."

It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately 6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts in the air.

"This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area."

These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified as white on the 2010 census.

Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general."

And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true. People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation.

"It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really is a swamp.""

The article ends with the opinions of the locals.

moscowexile , July 17, 2017 at 7:15 am
If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?

Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc?

I'm proud to be a Russkie fom Muskogee?

[Jul 17, 2017] On Nationalism

Notable quotes:
"... Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog . ..."
"... You cannot have nationalism without nation states and nation-states raison d'etre is conflict with each other. This crazy old world has got on rather well with all the scarcity and resultant wars and selfishness and religious or national myths . It wont last long with peace (because there is) plenty . Technology powerful enough to give lifestyles even beyond John Lennon's imaginings to the Western population. I speak of the Singularity. When there is nothing to fight about, there will soon be nothing, or no one, at all. Progress is greasing the skids toward humanity's tomb. ..."
"... Are you aware that Prez Trump ran as an opponent of American empire and pointless intrusion into other nations? ..."
Jul 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
Linh Dinh

An empire, by nature, must trample on nationhood, even its own, for it presents the empire's ambitions as the nation's necessities, for how else can you get Americans, for example, to go die and fight in Afghanistan or Iraq? Though citing love of nation constantly, our Washington rulers are essentially anti-American, and that's why a genuine nationalist like Edward Snowden must flee to Russia.

Nationalism is simply the love of one's language, culture, history and heritage, one's very identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool to violate one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American nation.

Linh Dinh's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog .

Dan Hayes > , July 17, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

Linh,

Good point about egregious John Lennon and his spaced-out partner Yoko.

When JL was assassinated I mentioned to a class that the same Beatles who preached forbearance and non-acquisitiveness broke up over petty jealousies and money squabbles. The class was devastated – for my callousness toward their premier modern day saint!

Your article covered a lot of ground and made many good points- very much appreciated

jilles dykstra > , July 17, 2017 at 6:30 am GMT

Nationalism is wrong, it is racism, that leads to fascism and gas chambers.

Che Guava > , July 17, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

@Dan Hayes I like the article, Linh particularly the last sentence and the anti-mixmaster world sentence in general. 'There is no here' is asinine.

I prefer Brett Ellis, 'Disappear here.'

Ono may be a drip, but some of her pre-Lennon art is very good, I am not talking about Cut Piece, but sculpture and her mail art, among others.

A few of her early seventies tracks, too.
Arguably, parts of her more recent 'dance' outing.

It is funny, she was very much disliked in Japan (thinking being not 'she broke up the Beatles' but 'if Lennon had to marry a Japanese woman, why did he not have the good taste to avoid a spoilt brat drama queen with a couple of fake suicide attempts behind her?')

Don't forget, she was born with a set of golden chopsticks, i.e, very wealthy, which is why she could afford to live as she did before she met Lennon. Never a day of work.

That has all changed, with her John Lennon museum in Saitama and all, media are non-stop positive nowadays.

His relationship with her, a little sick, vis. the photo of him naked in foetal pose in front of clothed and unbent Ono.

Sean > , July 17, 2017 at 7:20 am GMT

Nationalism is simply the love of one's language, culture, history and heritage, one's very identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool to violate one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American nation.

You cannot have nationalism without nation states and nation-states raison d'etre is conflict with each other. This crazy old world has got on rather well with all the scarcity and resultant wars and selfishness and religious or national myths . It wont last long with peace (because there is) plenty . Technology powerful enough to give lifestyles even beyond John Lennon's imaginings to the Western population. I speak of the Singularity. When there is nothing to fight about, there will soon be nothing, or no one, at all. Progress is greasing the skids toward humanity's tomb.

Shouting Thomas > , July 17, 2017 at 7:50 am GMT

Shit, I agree with you (mostly) about something.

You gonna dox me again? Not that it matters. I'm retired and can't be blacklisted. Nor can I be easily found. Sold out everything in retirement and virtually vanished from recorded existence.

Religion is also part of the deal. Religion is the oral history of our fathers and their fathers. It is the story of where we come from.

Are you aware that Prez Trump ran as an opponent of American empire and pointless intrusion into other nations?

The Alarmist > , July 17, 2017 at 8:33 am GMT

Hey amigo, the current ethos is, "Your stuff for me, but not for thee." The sooner you get that, the sooner we will all live in peace.

TelfoedJohn > , July 17, 2017 at 8:55 am GMT

"Imagine no possessions"
You can only completely disdain materialism if you are absurdly rich. Lennon had a refrigerated room for his fur coats. I've only seen the attitude of "wouldn't it be great if we could live without money" among the rich. It's especially common in upper middle class students. The most anti-materialist religion – Buddhism – came from a bored prince.

"Imagine there's no countries"

I'm imagining it, John, and it's pretty horrific. Borders are the last thing protecting countries from being a mush of multiculturalist capitalist slop protecting us from selling our inheritance for a globalist mess of pottage. Starbucks and Sharia. This 'no countries' idea can only come from a transnational elite. It can only be believed by natives who are deracinated from their own culture, or newcomers who are escaping some shithole.

johnlee > , July 17, 2017 at 9:17 am GMT

You are absolutely dead on with this essay. I point out to "nationalist" friends who like this song and then they change their minds "Imagine no country" or "nothing to die for"? I may as well ignore my chain of ancestry "god willing!"

[Jul 16, 2017] Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language.

Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , July 16, 2017 at 8:35 am

Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language. If anything about those lunatic days can be said to have been the catalyst which set subsequent events in motion, the fatal mistake, that was it. The mayor of Lvov, no less, made a speech the very next day – in perfect colloquial Russian – in which he tried to walk back the disaster and reassure the easterners that there would not be legal action to discriminate against them because of their habitual language, but the die was cast and it was too late.

Had the nationalists not had their way or had they not given in to the temptation to indulge their hatred of Russia and everything about it, there is every chance regime change would have succeeded in gathering Ukraine to the EU's bosom. Russia might still have made a grab for Crimea, and for me it would still have been legitimate since it was once part of Russia and was never ceded legally to Ukraine as its other territories were. But the stab in the back over the use of Russian, which once again was only a treat the nationalists foolishly allowed themselves as a reward for victory, provided a perfect catalyst for rebellion and the rapid decision-making it entails. I would be willing to bet Washington and the State Department are still cursing over that tactical blunder, since they are now lumbered with the great corrupt mass of Ukraine, with an active rebellion simmering on its eastern edge, but without the sparkling prize of Crimea. I don't know if Putin actually said he did not want to be welcomed by NATO sailors in Sevastopol, as he is reputed to have done, but that most certainly was part of the plan.

likbez , July 16, 2017 at 8:09 pm
This is a very good comment. I think you caught the essence of what happened. Nationalists first destroyed the country territorial integrity, and after that, they destroyed its economics. Essentially acting as US stooges, helping the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals (and Ukraine remains the major geopolitical victory of Obama administration).

Now the majority of Ukrainians exist on around $2 a day. So the social explosion is possible. And they continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. This is a real Ukrainian tragedy: they managed to replicate all the horrors of 90th again.

I still remember Bush the older speech about "suicidal Ukrainian nationalism" (Chicken Kiev speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech ). It proved to be pretty prophetic.

Also, idealization of the West promoted by nationalists serves as a trap, consequences of which are yet to come. Being Germany resource base is not a walk in the park. Ask Bulgarians about this experience. Or Greece.

At the same time Donbas tragedy was partially the result of Putin's policy (or lack thereof) because there was a vague promise that if on the referendum they vote for joining Russia they will be accepted like Crimea. But he decided not do that. Or, most probably, somebody helped Putin to decide that way. Of course, after Yeltsin drunk orgy Russia remains weak and can't challenge the USA directly. And that would do just that. But truth be told after Odessa civilians burning in the building all Eastern Ukraine up to Kiev was probably ready to accept Russians as liberators. At least nationalists in Kharkov felt that the city has been already lost.

I talked with a couple of Ukrainian refugees from Donbas area and they were not actually too exited about Putin's policy and think that he shares the blame with nationalists.

This was a trap that helped to provoke the civil war: the USA pushed for the military solution. May be in order to destabilize the region, and by extension, Russia, which they incorrectly consider the main geopolitical enemy after China. But as a result, they destroyed remnants of Ukrainian economics, and now somebody needs to pick the bill. This process of deindustrialization is continuing as Ukraine lost the major market for its production. 300% devaluation of grivna reflects just that. Just think about it: 300% in three years: from 8 to a dollar to 26

In essence, the USA position on Donbas conflict was to the right of Ukrainian nationalists. Especially US neocons like Nuland and McCain. I remember Yatsenyuk speech (in Russian) at this time in which he backtracked from "Ukrainian language uber alles" position; might be a tactical maneuver, but still

In any case, Ukraine remains the worst defeat of Putin in foreign policy area for his whole term in office (Libya was under Medvedev). And the major geopolitical victory for the USA. Nobody cares if Ukrainians will starve. And if Russia stops transiting of gas as they plan to do, the economic situation in Ukraine will become much worse. At this point they might arrive as close to the failed state as one can get.

marknesop , July 16, 2017 at 9:10 pm
Thank you, likbez. Yes, Putin several times referred carelessly to 'Novorossiya', which created the impression that Russia was considering accepting it. Also, he obtained the advance approval of the Duma to conduct military operations as he saw fit in order to protect eastern-Ukrainian ethnic Russians. That was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made, and he withdrew it, but it was too late and it very much played into western hands. Washington was able to portray Russia as ready to invade Ukraine, and it was convincing.

I think Putin has known all along that eastern Ukraine would be an asset as a frozen conflict, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in Georgia, whereas if Russia were to take them in they would be a liability, as Russia would be forced to defend them. But those former Donbas residents who grumble because Putin did not absorb eastern Ukraine should ask themselves if they would be better off if Kiev won and subjugated them, and they joined the people who are living on a couple of bucks a day. Russian commerce still goes on with the east, but not with the rest of Ukraine.

And it's true Ukraine represents a major defeat for Russia, but there was little Russia could have done to stop it. Russia was not going to go to war against NATO to prevent it from seizing Ukraine, but NATO is not likely to go to war to hold on to it, either. Russia played by the rules and stayed out of what it labeled Ukraine's business, but the west had no such scruples, and it meddled, meddled, meddled and instigated a coup. Only a coup will take it back.

[Jul 16, 2017] RussiaGate by Andrew Levine

Notable quotes:
"... When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them. ..."
"... Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control. ..."
"... For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden. ..."
"... How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities. ..."
"... The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established. ..."
"... Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

If Vladimir Putin is half as clever as his demonizers make him out to be, he must have figured out a long time ago that, to get inside Donald Trump's head, clinical psychologists with expertise treating male adolescents would be more useful than the Russian hackers, real or imaginary, that Western media obsess over.

Why even bother with hackers? The little that goes on between Trump's ears is all there in his tweets.

But, of course, if the idea is to develop capabilities for waging wars in the cyber sphere, good hackers are worth their weight in gold. If Putin isn't working on that, he is not doing his job.

These days, hackers are everywhere -- including Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. The United States has more than its fair share too, as do the UK and other Western countries. Some work for intelligence services, directly or indirectly; many, probably most, do not.

When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them.

Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control.

Needless to say, governments are not the only players; far from it. Many, probably most, hackers are not connected, even indirectly, with state intelligence services. Some of them may be "terrorists," according to one or another understanding of that fraught and contested term. It is safe to assume that most of them are not. They hack for the fun of it or because they can.

There are legally binding, though sometimes ineffective, conventions that prohibit the use of a few especially heinous kinds of weapons -- poison gas is a well-known example. Cyber weapons are not similarly proscribed. Hackers can be, and sometimes are, subject to domestic prosecution, but, between state actors, anything goes.

In much the same vein, international law does not prohibit states from interfering in the political affairs, or elections, of other states. Insofar as sovereignty still matters in our globalized neoliberal world, meddling of that kind plainly violates the spirit of the law, but it is not legally proscribed.

For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden.

What is clear, however, is that, for at least the past seven decades, the United States has interfered in one way or another in nearly every election that American government officials wanted to influence – either to prevent outcomes they opposed or to secure results they favored.

No corner of the world has been immune, but since the demise of the Soviet Union made meddling in the political affairs of Russia and other former Soviet republics easier, Washington has been especially intent on throwing its weight around in that part of the world – always in ways that put Russian national interests in jeopardy.

The "digital revolution" has greatly exacerbated the problem, making meddling a lot easier than it used to be.

How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities.

It is no slouch either when it comes to hacking into well-protected industrial and government servers around the world – to spy or to meddle or, as with those centrifuges in Iran, to sabotage.

Russia can do those things too – perhaps just as well, more likely not, but certainly well enough.

It may therefore be time, now that the Cold War is back, to revive a version of the old Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, updated for the digital age.

* * *

Thanks to digitalization and the many ways in which computers nowadays are able to communicate with each other, state and non-state actors can meddle – or worse – more effectively than in the past.

Inasmuch as quality emerges out of quantity, as dialecticians inspired by Hegel would say, meddling has therefore become qualitatively more problematic than it used to be.

Thus, with Cold War insanity coming back into vogue -- promoted by the entire political class, no longer just by Clinton retainers, and by the media flacks who serve them -- meddling is taking new forms.

Some things don't change, however. As long as it keeps spending more money on "defense" than the Russians do, the United States will retain the dominant position. Despite the best efforts of Cold Warriors to scare Americans into acquiescence, everyone now concedes that this was how it was with nuclear weapons and missiles and much else during the original Cold War. It is how it is today too, now that cyber weapons are added into the mix.

Nevertheless, as in the past, the War Party's spokespersons will insist that we are not spending nearly enough. Lying through their teeth, JFK and his people concocted a "missile gap" some six decades ago. No one should be surprised, with the 2018 midterm elections looming, when a "cyber weapons gap" opens up.

The death merchants and mad dog generals must be salivating at the prospect. Silicon Valley plus the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower's euphemism for death merchants and military brass, now dominate the real economy. Over them all, there is Wall Street; a far greater menace now than in Eisenhower's time. The too-big-to-fail-or-jail miscreants there must be salivating most of all.

It was public opinion that made the original Cold War possible, and so it is again. This is why the "liberal press" has been pulling out all the stops – vilifying Russia and demonizing its President.

But there are at least two reasons why they will have a harder time getting the result they want now than their counterparts had long ago.

For one, they don't have a President on board this time, except occasionally when all the stars are lined up right. Unlike his post-War predecessors, from Truman on, Trump has no geopolitical goals. Instead, he wants to make "deals" that he thinks will make him look good, but that will only make him richer.

Trump is no more anti-imperialist than Cecil Rhodes, and he doesn't have an internationalist bone in his body. But, during the campaign, he did find it expedient to strike a kind of pre-War isolationist pose.

Since that could in principle lead him sometimes to do the right thing -- albeit for bad, even noxious reasons – there were a few observers who were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the alternative was a continuation of the liberal imperialism of the Obama era, who could blame them?

What they actually did, however, was give Trump way too much credit. The man has no ideological convictions to speak of. For all practical purposes, his mind is a blank slate, susceptible to being swayed by whomever he talked to last or by the last pundit he watched on TV.

However, where Russia is concerned, he did, and still does, seem to have sounder instincts than his rivals. For Trump, instincts are all; and his instincts are dangerously off on almost everything. But not on this.

No doubt, his business involvements have a lot to do with it. So, very likely, does the fact that he could care less what others think. It probably also helps that he has no ties to the foreign policy establishment or to the so-called deep state.

Whatever the reasons, Trump does seem less in thrall to the delusions that shape this latest outbreak of Russophobia in political and media circles than other politicians at the national level. Indeed, even at this late date, he actually does seem to want to diminish, not exacerbate, tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers.

Bravo to him for that.

The other reason why Cold Warriors today have their work cut out for them, in ways that their counterparts after the Second World War did not, is that the justifications they are obliged to offer for treating Russia as an enemy are preposterous on their face.

Half a century ago, the Soviet Union was, in Churchill's words, "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Churchill went on to suggest that much of the mystery would dissipate if observers would think more carefully about Russia's national interests. That insight was among the first casualties of the rush to (cold) war that Churchill himself did so much to promote.

And so, an Iron Curtain descended over the Soviet Union and its "satellites," just as he said it would -- making it possible for the "free world's" propagandists to spin all kinds of yarns about Communist "subversion" and ill intent.

Cyber curtains are harder to construct. What could previously be kept opaque is therefore now ineluctably clear to anyone who cares to look.

This is why all the brouhaha over Russian meddling in the 2016 election would hardly even merit discussion, but for the fact that the stakes are so high, and because so many gullible people take it seriously.

Never mind that nothing actually came from the alleged meddling, except further confirmation of what everybody already knew: that the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, was working hard to assure that the Sanders insurgency would be defeated, and that Hillary Clinton would be the party's nominee.

Leave aside too the glaring hypocrisy of the United States, of all countries, objecting to election meddling. Evidently, the consensus view among mainstream politicians and in mainstream media circles too is that, in the United States, "what's sauce for the goose" is emphatically not also "sauce for the gander."

Forget genuinely "fake news" reports as well; for example, the claim that the Russians hacked into electoral grids in Vermont and elsewhere. There is no solid evidence for them; and, as one would expect, they disappear down the memory hole just as soon as they serve their purpose.

Reports of Russian hacking that bear on infrastructure security, financial transactions, trade, industrial processes, and other vital economic and military concerns would, if true, be genuinely worrisome were the recently revived Cold War to heat up.

With so many of the leading lights of the American political and media establishments working so diligently to make that happen, this is a cause for concern. But not even the most determined warmongers have been able to come up with a plausible story about how Russian hacking affected the election that put Donald Trump in the White House.

War Party propaganda notwithstanding, the claim that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election is hardly gospel truth. Nevertheless, it merits investigation.

The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know.

Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established.

Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are.

For profound historical reasons, slightly different, slightly less liberal and more authoritarian, norms obtain in Russia's political sphere than in most Western countries; and, needless to say, like everyone else everywhere, Putin and his constituents are creatures of their time and place.

On the whole, though, the demon of the hour seems no less governed by moral, customary or legal constraints than others in similar positions. Even in responding to events in Ukraine and Syria, he has been more scrupulously observant of international law than Barack Obama or Donald Trump.

His word may not be as good as gold, but it is a lot better than the CIA's. Indeed, when it comes to lying, the CIA is second to none. It has been known too to politicize intelligence when it suits its purposes or the purposes of the American government, insofar as the two diverge. The Bush-Cheney administration's "weapons of mass destruction" is only the best-known recent example.

I would therefore venture that of all the relevant parties weighing in, the American intelligence community is the least credible. But we are so bombarded with the party line on Russian meddling that it is hard not to succumb to the belief that there surely must be some there there. That (ultimately irrational) consideration apart, there is every reason to remain skeptical of everybody's assessments. For the time being and perhaps for some time to come, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.

The news that people close to Trump -- his son, his son-in-law, his campaign manager -- met with a lawyer whom they believed to be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and who probably was, changes nothing.

According to Donald Junior's emails, they did it to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, "opposition research" is part of electoral politics nowadays; they all do it.

The problem in this case is the involvement of someone with ties to the Kremlin. Had the story been that Trump or someone close to him hired homegrown detectives to dig up dirt on Clinton, the news probably wouldn't even have gotten Rachel Maddow's hackles up.

Or had the famiglia arranged a meeting for the same purpose with persons connected to some other country – Israel is an obvious example, but not the only imaginable one – that would be fine too.

Apparently, it is the Russian connection that is toxic.

For the anti-Trump political class and their mainstream media friends, Junior's emails are the Holy Grail, the "smoking gun."

But all they show is that there was contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Except on the dubious theory that the provision of information is an emolument of the kind that the Constitution proscribes, there was nothing even remotely criminal about that meeting in Trump Tower. There was not even anything unusual; campaigns look for dirt where they can find it, and they talk to foreign sources all the time.

Trump's flacks say that the purported smoking gun is actually no big deal.

It grieves me to say it, but they are right.

What those emails provide is evidence of the stupidity of the Trump family (no surprise there!) and close Trump associates (ditto). To make anything more of it is, to say the least, a stretch.

***

Narratives that center on Russian meddling in the 2016 election are one thing; well-researched investigations of connections between Trump, the Trump family, and the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and Russian oligarchs, mobsters, spies, and assorted sleaze balls, on the other, are something else altogether.

Inasmuch as birds of a feather generally do flock together, there probably are quite a few contacts of that sort to uncover.

Unfortunately, though, in the fog of neoconservative, Russophobic propaganda that has settled in over our shores, these issues have become confounded.

On the meddling in the last election question, the jury is still out on which liars to believe. Does it really matter, though?

It does to proponents and opponents of the War Party. The former are desperate for reasons to find Putin culpable of something, anything; the latter understand the importance of not letting them have their way.

It matters too to feckless Democrats (is there any other kind?) hoping to ride anti-Trump loathing back to power in 2018. It is all they have going for them.

But it hardly matters at all for the integrity of American democracy -- notwithstanding the self-righteous blather that currently surrounds the issue.

The danger to democracy – what little of it we have -- is not coming from hackers, Russian or otherwise, government sponsored or freelance. At this historical moment, it is coming mainly from the voter suppression efforts of Republican state officials and the Trump White House.

Republican donors are culpable too. They are the ones who bankroll the governors and state legislators who are leading the charge against (small-d) democracy.

How ironic that one of the things the Russians are supposed to have hacked into are state voting rolls. It is fatally unclear why they would care about that, just as it is brutally obvious why Republicans would. But this doesn't phase the War Party's propagandists one bit.

The story they are going with for now is that Putin wants Americans to lose faith in the democratic process. Why would he even care?

During the original Cold War, when the Soviet Union was supposedly intent on world domination, there were ways of answering that question. The answers were disingenuous, to say the least, but they could at least be made to seem plausible. Good luck with that now!

In any case, if Putin really did want to undermine faith in American democracy, he would be a little late to the gate; and he would be redundant. Who needs a foreign autocrat to do what Democrats and Republicans are already doing better?

Meanwhile, even with Junior's emails, Trump is still there; and unless Republicans turn on him, which, for now, seems unlikely – or unless, more unlikely still, he decides he has had enough -- there is where he will remain.

Meanwhile too, the Democratic Party, having made itself irrelevant, is still scapegoating Russians. What a dangerous, albeit bipartisan, spectacle – unreconstructed Clintonites working side by side with the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

All this does, though, is increase the likelihood that, in the process, the world will stumble into a war that, this time around, really will be a war to end all wars.

Is there a silver lining in any of this? If there is, it is well hidden. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine

ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Jul 16, 2017] Will the DNC lose in 2018, because theyre beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not sure if thats good or bad, but Im getting popcorn.

Notable quotes:
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | ucgsblog.wordpress.com
ucgsblog says: July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August, but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/message-democrats-must-more-talk-russia-122203301.html

"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

___

"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.

___

"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.

___

"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.

___

"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton.

___

"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org Civic Action.

___

"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman.

___

"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

!!!!!!-

The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.

Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:

"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"

Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.

[Jul 16, 2017] The Russian neoliberals that Western trolls consider "patriots of Russia" resort to usual Russian compradors resort to standard demagoguery "we are not against Russia, we are against State/Media" which serves as an excuse for betraying the interests of Russian people in favor of interests of multinationals

Notable quotes:
"... "Kovalev makes no secret of his own agenda, either. "I despise [Margarita] Simonyan [chief editor of RT and Rossiya Segodnya] for what she did to RIA," he says. "After all, my name is on the website, and now it's filled with all kinds of shit. And it's really shameful to see my name next to some stupid story about how Obama is a bad dancer. If that kind of story appeared on RIA a couple of years ago, the editor would have been fired." ..."
"... "When confronted with a deluge of information, people instinctively cling to just one source (however biased it may be) just because it's "ours." There is a certain degree of doublethink in Russia. How much contradiction can Russians absorb without going crazy? At any point in time, they believe two opposite things. For instance, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, but we are winning the war. Because we cannot lose. Because Russians can never lose. But there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. So whatever is broadcast, they will believe, because it's instinctive. Even if it's lies, we'll believe them because it's our guys who are telling the lies. Because everyone is lying, and we're going to stick to our lies. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , July 15, 2017 at 2:07 am

And about those whom fat Western trolls consider "patriots of Russia". Their usual demagogery aka "we are not against Russia, we are against State/Media" serves only as the excuse for all would be traitors. Nazis did the same thing with their "политрук лжёт" leaflets. Tiresome, useless and uneffective. To repeat this faily tactic now? What a mess, what a mess! Gevalt-gevalt!

https://globalvoices.org/2015/11/03/one-mans-revenge-against-russian-propaganda/

"Kovalev makes no secret of his own agenda, either. "I despise [Margarita] Simonyan [chief editor of RT and Rossiya Segodnya] for what she did to RIA," he says. "After all, my name is on the website, and now it's filled with all kinds of shit. And it's really shameful to see my name next to some stupid story about how Obama is a bad dancer. If that kind of story appeared on RIA a couple of years ago, the editor would have been fired."

[ ]

"When confronted with a deluge of information, people instinctively cling to just one source (however biased it may be) just because it's "ours." There is a certain degree of doublethink in Russia. How much contradiction can Russians absorb without going crazy? At any point in time, they believe two opposite things. For instance, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, but we are winning the war. Because we cannot lose. Because Russians can never lose. But there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. So whatever is broadcast, they will believe, because it's instinctive. Even if it's lies, we'll believe them because it's our guys who are telling the lies. Because everyone is lying, and we're going to stick to our lies. "

My, what a patriot of Russia! How high he thinks about his fellow people! Oh, and dissing Graham Phillips for his work in "occupied" Donbass – how more pro-Russian can they ever become?! Oh, I know – how about whoring for OpenDemocracy , which, I remind you, is funded by NED and Soros.

The meaty part? Kovalyov was editor in The Moscow Times , which fired recently its entire crew and stopped running as printed edition. Poor Kovalyov – how can he survive without panhandling and whoring himself even more to the Western press!

Btw, where is their server situated, oh self-less Patriots of True Russia? Why, in Murika , where else! It's net trust level? Negligible .

kirill , July 15, 2017 at 5:01 am
The Duma should get off its lazy ass an legislate a ban on all newsmedia purporting to be "Russian" having its computer servers stationed abroad. I do not mean blocking foreign media, I mean the "Moscow Times" and similar. This is a variation on the foreign agent theme and it seems the Russian law is too crappy to properly act against offshoring of information sources (i.e. propaganda sources).
marknesop , July 15, 2017 at 10:54 am
Russia has no need to block the Moscow Times; it is such a ridiculous nitpicking parody of actual life in Russia – going on week-long rants because Russia is not receptive to the introduction of crass western 'holidays' like Hallowe'en, for example, in which kids stuff themselves with candy until they throw up – that it actually fulfills a valuable service in Russia. It reminds those few Russians who read it and are not kreakl ponces that while it is wise to embrace those western concepts which are beneficial (medical and technological research, for example, which are still traded fairly freely on the world market), it is never wise to get down on the floor and roll in it.
moscowexile , July 15, 2017 at 11:19 am
On the site Quora , in answer to the question "How credible is the Moscow Times?", there are two replies.

The first is from a kreakl -- a professional photojournalist, publishing designer, TV cameraman and EN/RU translator, he says -- who thinks MT is top hole and gives a list of 5 other arsewipes that he holds in reverence:

There are five credible Russian media: Vedomosti, Kommersant, RBC, Лента.Ру and Meduza. All of them not without mishaps, but at least more or less readable (between the lines at least). Everything else Don't go there.

The second comment is bang on, in my humble opinion as an insignificant Englishman resident in Moscow for almost a quarter of a century:

Don't get me started. It's really, really bad, almost a cartoon of a propaganda mill.

It operates as a project to give bonuses to superannuated Radio Free Europe hacks who write articles on yesterday's news filled with quotes from people who have been dead for years.

Just one more example of how Putin controls the news.

For those who "don't do irony", the last sentence in the second of the above quotes has been written in irony.

The op-eds in MT are really over the top. Latynina often did them. (She might still do: it is several years since I picked up a freebie MT.) And then, just to let the readers believe there is a sense of balance at MT, there appears maybe two or three times a year an op-ed that is more positive about Russia.

That British rag the Guardian used to do the same in its risibly named feature "Comment Is Free".

Those 2 answers to the Quora question appeared in 2016, by the way.

The kreakl got one "like", the "useful idiot" got 5.

Two replies since March 2016!

[Jul 16, 2017] Trump's Worst Collusion Isn't With Russia -- It's With Corporations

Notable quotes:
"... Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire. ..."
"... The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion . ..."
"... As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts. ..."
"... every single state ..."
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | fpif.org

The billionaires who backed Trump are making out a lot better than Putin.

Originally published in OtherWords Print

donald-trump-der-spiegel-cover

Der Spiegel's instantly infamous Donald Trump cover.

I've always been a little skeptical that there'd be a smoking gun about the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. The latest news about Donald Trump, Jr., however, is tantalizingly close.

The short version of the story, revealed by emails the New York Times obtained, is that the president's eldest son was offered "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" and "would be very useful to your father."

More to the point, the younger Trump was explicitly told this was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Donald, Jr.'s reply? "I love it."

Trump Jr. didn't just host that meeting at Trump Tower. He also brought along campaign manager Paul Manafort and top Trump confidante (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.

We still don't have evidence they coordinated with Russian efforts to release Clinton campaign emails, spread "fake news," or hack state voting systems. But at the very least, the top members of Trump's inner circle turned up to get intelligence they knew was part of a foreign effort to meddle in the election.

Some in Washington are convinced they've heard enough already, with Virginia senator (and failed VP candidate) Tim Kaine calling the meeting " treason ."

Perhaps. But it's worth asking: Who's done the real harm here? Some argue it's not the Russians after all.

"The effects of the crime are undetectable," the legendary social critic Noam Chomsky says of the alleged Russian meddling, "unlike the massive effects of interference by corporate power and private wealth."

That's worth dwelling on.

Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire.

That gambit's paying off far more handsomely for them -- and more destructively for the rest of us -- than any scheme by Putin.

The evidence is hiding in plain sight.

The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion .

As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts.

Meanwhile, majorities of Americans in every single congressional district support efforts to curb local pollution, limit carbon emissions, and transition to wind and solar. And majorities in every single state back the Paris climate agreement.

Yet even as scientists warn large parts of the planet could soon become uninhabitable, the fossil fuel-backed Trump administration has put a climate denier in charge of the EPA, pulled the U.S. out of Paris, and signed legislation to let coal companies dump toxic ash in local waterways .

Meanwhile, as the administration escalates the unpopular Afghan war once again, Kushner invited billionaire military contractors -- including Blackwater founder Erik Prince -- to advise on policy there.

Elsewhere, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other architects of the housing crash are advising Trump on financial deregulation , while student debt profiteers set policy at the Department of Education.

Chomsky complains that this sort of collusion is often "not considered a crime but the normal workings of democracy." While Trump has taken it to new heights, it's certainly a bipartisan problem.

If Trump's people did work with Russia to undermine our vote, they should absolutely be held accountable. But the politicians leading the charge don't have a snowball's chance of redeeming our democracy unless they're willing to take on the corporate conspirators much closer to home. Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Jul 16, 2017] The legacy media and permanent ( deep ) state are struggling to savage Trump with absurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone

Jul 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria > , July 15, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

@RobinG Well said. The legacy media and permanent ("deep") state are struggling to savage Trump with absurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone.

Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfNe5WsmKwU

The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference Agree.

Meanwhile, here is a sensational article re "great America:" "CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11″ http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/

[Jul 15, 2017] Neocon chickenhawk Bill Kristol attacks Trump. That means he feels that there are powerful forces running this color revolution as personally he is just a despicable coward.

Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this ..."
"... Since the bipartisan War Party will not permit the guy to express his own preferred policies on the issues without threat of impeachment, why not try tweeting them? I'd appreciate at least a hint of what to look out for before it lands on my head. ..."
Jul 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

The quote from The Insult Wars in Washington by Tom Engelhardt

But one tweet truly caught my attention, even if it was at the very beginning of a donnybrook that, with twists and turns, including claims of attempted White House blackmail over a National Enquirer article (and Trumpian rejoinders of every kind), would monopolize the headlines and fill the yak-o-sphere of cable TV for days. That tweet came from conservative idol Bill Kristol, editor at large for the Weekly Standard . It said: "Dear @realDonaldTrump, You are a pig. Sincerely, Bill Kristol."

WorkingClass , July 10, 2017 at 4:32 pm GMT

Your side made it personal Tom. Your side made it clear they hate not just Trump but the entire white race. I never before engaged in identity politics. It has been my habit to condemn the D's and R's equally for ruining the country. But now that the DNC and the corporate media have marked me for destruction my skin color, gender and sexual orientation have become my politics. Check out CNNs ratings. Make a sober assessment of the DNCs prospects. Look at recent polling indicating the people are not buying the constant lies about Russia and Putin. You are reaping the whirlwind Tom.

Trump's foreign policy is indefensible. But his enemies remain my enemies. Trump has made it clear that he will not be a punching bag. In this way he speaks for me. If your very special prosecutor is successful in his coup attempt against our president there will be hell to pay.

RobinG , July 14, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT

@The Scalpel Funny, I thought this was going to be a balanced article that included comments about how the legacy media constantly insults Trump and spins things anyway they can to make Trump look bad, and how all that is divisive to our nation. I thought it was going to mention how all of this is an effort to subvert the will and desires of the Americans who elected Trump.

LOL. I didn't really think that - even for a second. After all, this is Tom Engelhardt. The deplorables are invisibile and inconsequential Well said. The legacy media and permanent ("deep") state are struggling to savage Trump with abssurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone.

Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this

The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference

John Smith , July 14, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT

Ah Just some more salty tears from those who hate Trump for talking to the people without going through the "ministry of truth" that Democrats and Marxist have worked so hard to build up.

DaveE , July 14, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT

I don't tweet, but if I did, I'd write something like "Dear @Kristol, If Trump is a pig, you are the daily output of Mr. Trump. Sincerely, @DaveE"

I'd be molested (or arrested) for anti-Semitism, however.

So please cut the "we're so prosecuted" crap, Mr. Englehardt. No pun intended. The media fully deserves to wallow in its own boiling filth for all eternity.

RobinG , July 14, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT

@El Dato Well the information is a bit spread out and M. Stranahan should have those slides ready and easily retrievable at a second's notice but he sure is a good speaker. Well, ya. Some people don't like the whole Periscope media genre. Lee is building to a final report that will be crisp and professional. He's also making a movie about George Soros (poster child of the Deep State).

Here he is on RT, very sharp.

Where's the Gate in Russiagate?

ANON , July 14, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT

"In a way, you might say that, back in 1979, Brzezinski, the father, first ushered us into a new global age of imperial conflict. He was, after all, significantly responsible for ensuring that the U.S. would engage in a war in Afghanistan in order to give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam, or what Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev would later call its "bleeding wound."

Jews were furious about us going into Afghanistan as an anti Soviet measure because the Soviet Union with its genocide of the goyim, gulags, takeover of E Europe, plans to take over the rest of the world, was the supreme, supreme achievement of Jewry in the last 5,000 years.

The creation of the soviet union and its genocide of 100 million goyim by jews was nothing to the creation of Israel, the murder of a million or so Palestinians, a couple hundred thousand middle easterners including the American sailors on the USS Liberty and the confiscation of Palestine.

The soviet union was Jews highest and most beloved and defended achievement. Naturally Jews hate Brzezinski because in most of the 20th century to be anti Soviet was to be anti semitic.

Many Jews still claim that that Polish Pope who worked with Lech Walesa to overturn the evil empire drove the trucks that carried the gas containers to Auschwitz and hunted down Jews to
turn over to the Germans. Stalin is still the hero because he fought Hitler.

Amomynous , July 15, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

Since the bipartisan War Party will not permit the guy to express his own preferred policies on the issues without threat of impeachment, why not try tweeting them? I'd appreciate at least a hint of what to look out for before it lands on my head. Moreover, they can't be that complex to require more than 140 characters whether he or the neocons make them up. Plus they wouldn't be filtered and distorted by the media as everything else is. No need to impinge on prime time TV, just tweet the State of the Union come January. For more innovative ideas to streamline American governance, just view the movie "Idiocracy." I understand "The Rock" wants to be our next president. Life imitating art, I suppose.

[Jul 14, 2017] Video Shows Iraqi Troops Killing Mosul Detainees – News From Antiwar.com

Jul 14, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Defense Ministry Vows Investigation Into Killings

Jason Ditz Posted on July 13, 2017 Categories News Tags Iraq The Iraqi Defense Ministry has promised an investigation today after videos emerged of Facebook showing Iraqi soldiers in Mosul killing detainees, saying they were aware of the reports and such incidents wouldn't be tolerated.

The videos show Iraqi soldiers, in uniform, savagely beating detainees, and accusing them of being ISIS. At one point, the soldiers cast detainees off the wall overlooking the Tigris River, wten shoot at their bodies when they land by the river bed.

A second video from the same Facebook page, touting the "heroes" of Iraq's Army 16th division,shows Iraqi soldiers, again in uniform, killing an unarmed man kneeling in front of a car. Two other videos are on the page, but those only show savage beatings and no apparent deaths.

Revenge killing has been a consistent fact of Iraqi military offensives "liberating" Sunni cities from ISIS, though the videos show an increase in brazenness, if nothing else, as the troops clearly know they're being recorded committing war crimes, and are confident that at the end of the day the Iraqi government will look the other way, as they have so often in the past.

[Jul 14, 2017] Republican Operative Behind WSJ Collusion Bombshell Committed Suicide Zero Hedge

Jul 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Republican Operative Behind WSJ Collusion "Bombshell" Committed Suicide Tyler Durden Jul 14, 2017 7:00 PM 0 SHARES according to the Chicago Tribune.

Smith left a carefully prepared file of documents, including a statement police described as a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and that a life insurance policy was expiring.

Smith's death, which occurred on May 14, 10 days before the story was published, was one of the most bizarre developments in a hard-to-follow WSJ story that tried (and in our estimation, failed) to implicate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in a sinister plot to enlist the help of some Russians to hack the 2016 election...thus 'proving' collusion.

In the story, Smith recounted to WSJ his mission to find Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 emails – the holy grail of opposition research – which he organized late in the summer of 2016. The project began over Labor Day weekend when Smith, who as WSJ notes had been "active in Republican politics," assembled a group of technology experts, lawyers and a Russian-speaking investigator based in Europe to acquire emails the group theorized might have been stolen from the private server Mrs. Clinton used as secretary of state. Smith believed that, once found, at least some of the emails would prove to be relevant to her official duties at the State Department, handing the Trump campaign an enormous PR victory and possibly proving that she knowingly misled investigators.

Smith & Co. scoured hacker forums, ultimately finding 5 groups who claimed to have the missing emails, 2 of which were Russian. However, Smith seemingly doubted the authenticity of the intelligence he received and, as a result, never leaked their contents. Even more confusing, Smith says he eventually turned over the emails to Wikileaks, but the group hasn't published them, and denies ever having received them. Smith told the WSJ reporter that he'd considered Flynn an ally, but stopped short of alleging that the two worked together on the project.

Of course, it's only deep in the story that the WSJ admits they have no idea if Flynn was even involved with Smith...but no one reads an entire article so it's fairly irrelevant.

What role, if any, Mr. Flynn may have played in Mr. Smith's project is unclear. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Smith said he knew Mr. Flynn, but he never stated that Mr. Flynn was involved.

And another irrelevant detail from the WSJ:

Mr. Smith said he worked independently and wasn't part of the Trump campaign.

Smith was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached. A medical examiner's report gives the same account, without specifying the time, and a report from the Rochester, Minnesota police further details his suicide, according to the Chicago Tribune. Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium."

In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that "NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER" was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a "RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017" and timing related "TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5 MILLION EXPIRING."

Mystery shrouded how and where Smith had died, but the lead reporter on the stories said on a podcast he had no reason to believe the death was the result of foul play and that Smith likely had died of natural causes.

Smith had been staying at the hotel – in a room typically used by patients of the Mayo Clinic - for several days and had extended his stay at least once but was expected to check out on the day his body was found. "Tomorrow is my last day," Smith told a hotel worker on May 13 while he worked on a computer in the business center, printing documents, according to the police reports.

One of Smith's former employees told the Tribune he thought the elderly man had gone to the famed clinic to be treated for a heart condition. Mayo spokeswoman Ginger Plumbo said Thursday she could not confirm Smith had been a patient, citing medical privacy laws.

Smith had a history of doing opposition research against President Bill Clinton and had a hand in exposing the "Troopergate" allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life.

His obituary said Smith was involved in public affairs for more than 60 years and described him as a "quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically secure world." Smith led private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments for more than 40 years. Earlier, he worked with DigaComm LLC from 1997 to 2014 and as the president of Peter W. Smith & Co. from 1975 to 1997. Before that, he was a senior officer of Field Enterprises Inc., a firm that then owned the Chicago Sun-Times and was held by the Marshall Field family, his obituary said.

Smith's last will and testament, signed last Feb. 21, is seven pages long and on file in Probate Court in Lake County, Illinois. The will gives his wife his interest in their residential property and his tangible personal property and says remaining assets should be placed into two trusts.

He was born Feb. 23, 1936, in Portland, Maine, according to the death record.

His late father, Waldo Sterling Smith, was a manufacturer's representative for women's apparel firms, representing them in department stores in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, according to the father's 2002 obituary. The elder Smith died at age 92 in St. Augustine, Fla., and his obit noted that he had been active in St. Johns County, Fla., Republican affairs and with a local Methodist church. Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight."

moorewasthebestbond , Jul 14, 2017 7:03 PM

...Like I always say, suicide can sometimes be the honorable thing to do.

Cheka_Mate -> moorewasthebestbond , Jul 14, 2017 7:04 PM

As they say in Arkansas

"It's been known to happen..."

Son of Loki -> Cheka_Mate , Jul 14, 2017 7:12 PM

His suicide note said, "No foul play whatsoever."

Q: Was it typed before or after he 'sucided' himself?

bamawatson -> Son of Loki , Jul 14, 2017 7:12 PM

"do we find the cost of freedom guried in the ground?" https://vid.me/Csej

HopefulCynical -> bamawatson , Jul 14, 2017 7:12 PM

And the lemmings traipse merrily over the cliff. Nothing to see here, people...move along...

tmosley -> HopefulCynical , Jul 14, 2017 7:22 PM

TDS claims yet another victim.

Jim Sampson -> tmosley , Jul 14, 2017 7:23 PM

I wouldn't be surpirse if the note itself said "NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER, SUPER SERIAL"

Occident Mortal -> Jim Sampson , Jul 14, 2017 7:31 PM

This whole Russia thing is a joke now.

THEY DONT EVEN HAVE A CRIME SCENE.

THE SO CALLED VICTIMS OF THIS CRIME (the DNC) REFUSED TO HAD OVER THE EVIDENCE (their hacked servers). INSTEAD THE VICTIMS DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE OF THIS ALLEDGED CRIME.

Let that sink in for a moment. The victims of the crime, destroyed the evidence of the crime, and they spent a lot of time and money to destroy it properly.

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah -> Occident Mortal , Jul 14, 2017 7:32 PM

Suicide note: "BTW - Seth Rich died of a mugging gone wrong."

Pinto Currency -> Creepy_Azz_Crackaah , Jul 14, 2017 7:46 PM

More today:

Cernovich: Klaus Eberwein Found Dead Before Testifying Against Clinton Foundation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EqdA5FFpqM

Whoa Dammit -> Pinto Currency , Jul 14, 2017 7:59 PM

How does someone get a tank of helium to kill themselves with? I don't think the average person can just go buy one.

francis_the_won... -> Whoa Dammit , Jul 14, 2017 8:19 PM

It's actually pretty hard to do. As a technical diver, one of our biggest, and growing, challenges is securing reliable sources of helium year in and year out. The stuff is finite on this planet and we are running out.....absent a few nuclear blasts.

nmewn -> Creepy_Azz_Crackaah , Jul 14, 2017 7:54 PM

Natalia V lies her way into a meeting with Trump Jr June 9 2016 and a month later Seth is murdered.

The unmistakable stench of a Clinton.

EuroPox -> Occident Mortal , Jul 14, 2017 7:35 PM

And, here's another one! http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/articl... Eberwein was supposed to appear before the Haitian Senate's Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission next Tuesday - he was expected to testify that the Clinton Foundation misappropriated Haiti earthquake donations from international donors... but clearly decided that shooting himself in the head was a better option.

Whoa Dammit -> EuroPox , Jul 14, 2017 8:04 PM

From the above article: "He was also a partner in a popular pizza restaurant in Haiti, Muncheez, and has a pizza -- the Klaus Special -- named after him."

NoDebt -> Jim Sampson , Jul 14, 2017 7:30 PM

"Smith was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached."

Wait, WHAT???

Great, now I gotta update my avatar again. The nail gun feels very dated compared to this. Anybody know where I can get a picture file of a "helium suicide bag"?

Jim Sampson -> NoDebt , Jul 14, 2017 7:41 PM

https://www.google.com/search?q=helium+suicide+bag&source=lnms&tbm=isch&...

I didn't know this was a thing. Kind of depressing.

Urban Roman -> Cheka_Mate , Jul 14, 2017 7:14 PM

I'm sure they'll get right on it as soon as they wrap up the Seth Rich case.

NoDebt -> Too-Big-to-Bail , Jul 14, 2017 7:32 PM

I'm so glad you asked, TBTB. I wondered the same thing. Couple google searches later and I find this:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Suicide/Suffocation/Helium

Serious.Lee , Jul 14, 2017 7:13 PM

Just in:

Klaus Eberwein Found Dead Before Testifying Against Clinton Foundation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2EqdA5FFpqM

Too-Big-to-Bail , Jul 14, 2017 7:13 PM

Also, If he really was wanting to commit suicide, and all his life he was trying to bring the Clintons down, you'd think he would want to plan it out in a way that wanted to implicate Hillary -- murder usually pays double for insurance and in many cases suicide can nullify the insurance policy altogether.

Youri Carma , Jul 14, 2017 7:23 PM

'Clinton death list': 33 spine-tingling cases http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-death-list-33-most-intriguing-cases/

Laughing.Man , Jul 14, 2017 7:33 PM

Bullshit. You off yourself before your insurance expires? I don't believe suicide is covered. Notice that these suicides are not in their place of residence. IMO, video of them explaining it and the act or it didn't happen.

insanelysane -> Laughing.Man , Jul 14, 2017 8:03 PM

It's completely nonsensical. My $5 million dollar policy is going to end date so I am going to put a bag over my head and kill myself to collect. ??? You would make it look like an accident. Everyone that is over 80 years old would kill themselves if insurance paid out on suicide. None of it makes sense yet the MSM "journalists" just write that there is nothing to see here, move along. See Seth Rich.

WillyGroper -> Laughing.Man , Jul 14, 2017 8:31 PM

if you've paid the premiums for 2 yrs, it's covered.

artichoke -> azusgm , Jul 14, 2017 8:06 PM

What kind of life insurance policy pays out on suicide? I'd never write such a policy, especially for a very old person who might figure he's seen enough and wants to give a nice gift to his wife or estate.

Cordeezy , Jul 14, 2017 8:02 PM

I thought suicide voided life insurance deals usually

www.escapeamazon.com

Yars Revenge -> Cordeezy , Jul 14, 2017 8:22 PM

It does, so it makes zero sense why he would mention his policy in the note.

bkboy -> Yars Revenge , Jul 14, 2017 8:55 PM

Correct, but that is why it makes sense. He may have inserted the non-sensical reference to his life insurance policy as a message to police that it was NOT suicide. And he may have been forced to write the note under threat that they would kill somebody in his family if he did not write such a note.

DjangoCat -> Yars Revenge , Jul 14, 2017 9:04 PM

Wrong. Most policies have a two year window after inception where suicide voids the poicy. After that it is a valid cause of death.

insanelysane , Jul 14, 2017 8:09 PM

How many suicide notes include verbiage that tells the authorities that there was no foul play???

I plan on killing myself because my life sucks and oh by they way, don't bother with further investigation because I'm letting you know that there was no foul play. My plan is to shoot myself multiple times in the head.

[Jul 14, 2017] House Dems plan to force Russia votes

Jul 14, 2017 | www.msn.com
House Democrats announced a new strategy on Friday to force votes in an effort to highlight President Trump's possible ties to Russia.

Democrats plan to offer measures known as resolutions of inquiry that automatically trigger floor votes if they don't get action in committee within 14 legislative days.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and several other Democratic lawmakers scheduled a press conference in the Capitol to announce the plans on Friday morning.

The announcement included members of the House Financial Services, Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.

Democrats are seizing on the few tools at their disposal given their limited ability to direct congressional oversight while in the minority.

Republicans are likely to consider the resolutions in committee to avoid forcing the entire House to vote on them.

Still, the votes are meant to put a spotlight on Trump as well as House Republicans, who Democrats say aren't being aggressive enough with oversight of the administration.

For instance, one resolution unveiled as part of the strategy would request documents or records from Trump relating to his abrupt firing of James Comey as FBI director in May and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' involvement in the decision.

The resolution, offered by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), will go to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Judiciary panel already rejected multiple previous resolutions of inquiry earlier this year that demanded documents from the Justice Department connecting the Trump campaign with the Russian government's 2016 election interference.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) also offered a resolution of inquiry in the House Ways and Means Committee to request President Trump's tax returns from the last decade.

The party-line votes in committee to dismiss the resolutions prevented any House floor vote.

But Democrats are determined to force more votes - even if they don't go anywhere - to pressure Republicans after revelations this week involving President Trump's son.

Donald Trump Jr. released emails on Tuesday showing how he set up a meeting last year with a Russian lawyer claiming to have damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

A publicist with ties to a Trump family business partner who served as an intermediary said that it was "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

[Jul 14, 2017] Ignore the Haters. Russia Is Not Our Enemy

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | reason.com
The intelligence and military leakers and Trump's political enemies believe friendly relations with Vladimir Putin's government are dangerous. But since Russia can annihilate our country, the greater danger is not engaging with Putin.

The anti-Russia hyperventilation covers the political spectrum. Republican Sen. John McCain told an interviewer that Putin is a greater threat than ISIS, accusing Russia of trying to change election results in America, France and elsewhere. But Putin's regime is not decapitating or urging lone wolves to massacre Americans on US soil. And as for Russian manipulation, the pro-Russian candidate Marine LePen was crushed in the May presidential election in France.

Democrat Hillary Clinton accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to "weaponize" leaked information against her with the WikiLeaks' dump of John Podesta email messages. Clinton's collusion assertion is based on her questionable assumption that WikiLeaks is an agent of Russia. Since WikiLeaks operates out of an embassy in London, one might expect our British allies to have leaked Putin's instructions to Julian Assange by now.

McCain, Clinton and others are amplifying the US intelligence community's public indictment of Russia for election meddling during the closing days of the Obama administration. That report also claims that Russian agents hacked Podesta's email and released them through WikiLeaks, but does not provide hard evidence.

Intelligence community assertions should be treated with skepticism. After all, this community concluded in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Further, a senior member of the intelligence community, James Clapper, lied to Congress in 2013 when he denied that the NSA collects data on Americans.

Even assuming the allegations are true, they do not lead to the immediate conclusion that Russia is an enemy. Friendly countries spy on one another and try to influence each other's elections all the time. President Obama called on British voters to reject Brexit, and the NSA appears to have bugged German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's mobile phone.

Israel spies on the US and tries to influence our elections. Jonathan Pollard's espionage "has few parallels" according to the CIA , which concluded he had "put at risk important U.S. intelligence and foreign policy interests." In 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to scuttle President Obama's re-election effort.

Most of the intelligence community memo focuses on the activities of RT, a Russian media group that operates a cable news channel, a web site and social media properties in the US. RT is accused of spreading propaganda and fake news that impacted our election. But such media are neither new nor unique to Russia.

Our Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other state media have been around for decades. Among the personalities on RT America are Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and former Air America hosts Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – none of whom appear to be stooges for Vladimir Putin. Further, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood noted in his excellent overview of RT , the network "is watched by so few people that Nielsen doesn't bother to publish its ratings."

To be sure, Putin has some very undemocratic inclinations. But the US has maintained and continues to maintain friendly relations with despotic nations. President Richard Nixon visited China in 1971, not long after Mao Zedong killed tens of millions of people with his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Today, there is widespread support for friendly relations with Saudi Arabia – an undemocratic nation that stones women to death for adultery.

It is also true that Russia is a rival for influence on the world stage. This perhaps is why our generals, intelligence operatives, representatives, think tanks and the media so dislike Putin. While the foreign affairs intelligentsia views the world as a power-playing chessboard, this approach to geopolitics is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans who don't benefit from international conflicts.

When President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the oval office a few weeks ago, he shared intelligence about a plot by Syrian-based ISIS operatives to place laptop bombs on civilian airplanes. Russia's presence in Syria may have helped thwart this plot. And it had an incentive to do so: ISIS previously downed a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai Desert.

As president, Donald Trump has the legal right to declassify the intelligence. But some unelected bureaucrat in the US national security establishment decided that Trump's actions were inappropriate and leaked the story to The Washington Post . It is possible the leak alerted ISIS that its plot had been compromised, encouraging the terrorists to protect their bomb-building efforts from further scrutiny. The potential victims of this leak are civilian passengers of US airlines – the presumed target of the ISIS plot.

Russia also provided intelligence that, had it been handled properly by the FBI, could have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from bombing the Boston marathon.

Rather than cooperating, however, the national security establishment not only seeks conflict with Russia, it looks for enemies around the world. Hostilities provide lucrative contracts and a sense of mission to those advancing them – but imposes huge costs on the rest of us. US troops are now engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Worldwide warfare has driven national security spending toward $1 trillion a year. With a national debt approaching $20 trillion, this is a financial cost our country can ill afford. And since 2001, the US has suffered almost 7,000 deaths and over 52,000 wounded in foreign hostilities.

Democrats 50 years ago were peace organizers, fired by Martin Luther King's condemnation of the Vietnam War. And Barack Obama won the presidency promising to withdraw from Iraq.

But in their desire to rid the White House of Donald Trump, Democrats have forsaken their anti-war heritage. Instead, they are teaming up with Republican hawks and the Deep State to drive a wedge between the US and Russia.

Libertarians are the logical champions of peace and prosperity, but some have expressed sympathy for coercive US government actions to counter Russian influence. These include targeted sanctions and funding for groups in Eastern Europe that supposedly promote liberal democracy.

Although portrayed as a penalty on foreign powers, sanctions prevent US individuals and companies and individuals from doing business with those countries. A new Senate bill, S.722 , prevents US companies from working on gas pipelines between Russia and Western Europe. The bill also appropriates $500 million of US taxpayer money to a "Countering Russian Influence Fund," to be spent in Eastern Europe. The legislative language lists six possible uses for this money which sound good, but are vague and open to broad interpretation.

Libertarians recognize the state usually abuses the powers we give it. We should never advocate for restrictions on trade or appropriation of tax money for so-called democracy promotion. Peace and non-interventionism are core tenets of libertarianism that too many self-identified libertarians seem to forget. We must avoid repeating the mistakes we made in the runup to the Iraq War.

Regardless of one's position on Trump, Congress has not declared war on Russia. Russia has not invaded us. Russia is not our enemy.

[Jul 13, 2017] As of July 12 witch hunt continues unabated

They want to outdo Senator Joseph McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957). The level of hysteria and paranoia is amazing. The only question is whether they can run it for ten years.
Obviously the author has an agenda but it's interesting how this type of fantasy continues to be 'quacked'
Notable quotes:
"... By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts. ..."
"... One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which high-impact states and districts in those states." ..."
Jul 13, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from: Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation

WASHINGTON -- Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the Trump campaign's digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia's sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump's campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump's digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.

Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks .

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether Russia's "fake or damaging news stories" were "coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of any other measure with the (Trump) campaign."

By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.

Russia's operation used computer commands knowns as "bots" to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a pedophile ring at a Washington pizzeria .

One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which high-impact states and districts in those states."

All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.

Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.

Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters and whether there was "any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of work."

Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a "person of interest" in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances and December meetings with Russia's ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.

Kushner's "role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow's influence operations in the elections," including his niche overseeing the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.

Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied "If it's what you say I love it."

That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.

Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia's cyber operatives.

"There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia's online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation," he said, without naming any American suspects.

Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.

Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia's role in the election meddling and Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.

A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including interference in other countries' internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn't believe such an effort can happen.

As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired with the Russians.

Among other things, congressional investigators are looking into whether Russian operatives, who successfully penetrated voting registration systems in Illinois, Arizona and possibly other states, shared any of that data with the Trump campaign, according to a report in Time.

"I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner told Pod Save America recently. "Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren't even aware (of) really raises some questions How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?"

The Russians appear to have targeted women and African-Americans in two of the three decisive states, Wisconsin and Michigan, "where the Democrats were too brain dead to realize those states were even in play," Warner said.

[Jul 12, 2017] Which Campaign Truly Colluded With Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Who gave the NYT the private emails of Donald Trump junior? Would that not be a criminal offense? ..."
"... The guy, who sent Trump Jr. the emails is called Rob Goldstone and works in the music industry. Michael Goldstone, who is in that industry as well is partner of Peter Mensch, the husband of Louise Mensch, Trump and Russia hater. I wonder, if the Goldstones are related? ..."
"... It's become clear to me that the entire "Russiagate Scandal" is an elaborate operation to cover up HRC's crimes committed through her foundation and as Secretary of State--that's where a very good case for treason lies, massive tax fraud and illegal uses of a non-profit org that isn't even properly chartered in all 50 states and in numerous other nations, amid other felonious behavior. Note that since the Podesta/DNC email leak that essentially zero members of the Propaganda System have examined the mass of evidence of wrongdoing it contains. Instead, we were immediately treated to "Russiagate," and Sanders played right along with HRC et al. ..."
"... The Clintons were recruited by the Deep State and became some of its most effective members in advancing its cause--the primary Foreign and Domestic policy drive of the Outlaw US Empire was formulated and published during Clinton's second term: Joint Vision 2010 , wherein the goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the entire planet and its people--GHW Bush's "New World Order"--was put into practice. The illegal war against Serbia was its first test, which was launched after supporting Chechen terrorists to tie down Russia so it would be unable to help. Also, the prepping of TWTC for demolition by terrorists was done simultaneously. As with the OKC bombing, the motive for 911 was the destruction of evidence implicating numerous Deep State members and overall Deep State activity that would finally tear the veil from years of multi-billion dollar graft and corruption. ..."
"... So, defending the Clintons differs little from defending the Deep State since they've operated as a team for decades, which is why we've seen "Russiagate" continue on without any credible evidence to justify its existence. And, we'll continue to be plagued by it no matter how much pushback is done because of what its designed to protect. Comey did nothing with all the evidence he had because he's part of the Deep State team, which is why he hasn't been arrested for his own law breaking, http://theduran.com/comey-stole-memos-leaked-classified-information/ And the primary reason why Trump's Justice Dept. hasn't indicted either is because its head--and many others within Trump's admin.--are GOBS--Good Old Boys--that are also part of or associated with the Deep State network. ..."
"... Indeed, what we see is another deep-state leak to punish Trump and Russia, the writing of Goldstone is also just what the anti-Trump and Russia crowd needed at this time. All boils down to who this russian woman is I guess. ..."
"... CIA-Gate - thoughts? Did MI-6 and CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
"... Follow-up ... 'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow ..."
"... Seems to me Netanyahu is a revengeful guy and Obama interfered in the last Israeli election for the Knesset. The Democrats pushed through the Iran nuclear deal and HRC was the darling of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Egypt's Morsi and Erdogan of Turkey. The Saudi King was not amused and intelligence cooperation with Israel's Mossad has intensified. Thinking support for Al Nusra near the Golan Heights in the fight to overthrow Assad in Damascus. Useful "intelligence" from Unit 8200 in Ghouta gas attack, the so-called intercepts of the SAA generals. ..."
"... Both Clinton and Trump are crooks, but in different kinds of ways. Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Paul Singer, Rubio Donor ..."
"... Cristina Lalia provides plenty of grounds for this choice by citing HRC/DNC collusion with Ukrainian officials in an attempt to get dirt on Trump, which is now conveniently forgotten, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47414.htm ..."
"... Tyler Durden's been on the trail of the massive cover-up known as "Russiagate" since his Zerohedge article illuminating the investigation done by Charles Ortel. His most recent item deals with Comey's lawbreaking and is most damning, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47405.htm ..."
"... Here's the link to Durden's piece on the Clinton Foundation, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown and the link to the website Ortel made to document his investigation, http://charlesortel.com/ ..."
"... In my disappeared comment, I provided a rationale for Russiagate's purpose as a cover up for HRC & DNC crimes and Sander's willingness to go along. Alas, I should have copied before hitting post. I also provided the rationale for why Russiagate won't go away despite the lack of evidence--It's ultimate purpose is to cover up Deep State crimes and its primary purpose since GHW Bush declared the New World Order, which was left for the Clintons to organize. Also note how the running of Russiagate is bipartisan--where are the senate investigations into HRC, DNC, Podesta, Comey, Lynch, and who knows how many others: Why don't Republicans smell the blood and go for the kill of so many allegedly hated opponents? ..."
"... To me, "colluded with Russia" implies collusion with the Russian government, or state. At any rate, this is the gravamen of the current US/Western pandemic of acute Russophobia. Even the complementary, or corollary, Putinphobia isn't directed towards Putin as a person -- Putin is only the hysterics' "Great Satan" because he personifies the Russian state/government. As far as I can see, the allegations concerning both campaigns involve individual actors, some of whom happen to be Russian. ..."
"... Cannot set aside the Clinton Foundation, CGI, bankers'speeches and especially Bill w. Lynch on the tarmac and the family mail server. No matter how much the bottom-feeding deep swamp state nips at Trump's ankles, so far he's still on top. ..."
"... This operation -- and it sounds like an operation -- was obviously a trap of sorts. "There is no follow up". Yes, the genius son figured out. After changing his schedule on demand (that was a test to see how desperate he is for it) and finally meeting the person he believed was a "Russian government attorney" bring info from "Crown prosecuter", Mr. Peter Principle realizes that he was played. I bet he's sweating bullets for a while now. ..."
"... On a side note, isn't amazing that such stupid incompetents (such as D Jr.) get to enjoy the fat of the land while the rest of us work at the plantation. What a thoughtless idiot. You're fired, Donnie. ..."
"... Yes, indeed! Who gave the NY Times, Donnie Jr's emails? Will Papa Donnie investigate? ..."
"... "New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into question." ..."
"... The big takeaway from all the Russiagate garbage - there was collusion between heads of intel and Obama admin to install Clinton as president, and now the same collusion to take down Trump. ..."
"... It appears the Deep State didn't trust Trump to keep its many secrets covering its illegalities secret. It also seems the Republicans want to keep them secret too since we don't see any sign of any investigation into Clinton Foundation, Comey's law breaking, or anything else of importance. ..."
"... Special And Off Limits - No Special Prosecutor for Clinton. Russia hacking DNC was determined by Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike has an odor. The DNC refused the FBI to examine the claim of Russia hacking their servers. Why? ..."
"... ...There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails...." notice that it is no longer "alleged Russian hacking", BUT "Russian government computer hacking" ..."
"... I have seen no hard evidence of that at all. Go believe what you want, the Ruling Class has decided on their stupid ignorant narrative which will/may drive us to nuclear war. ..."
"... "Both Clinton and Trump are crooks, but in different kinds of ways." ..."
"... Yep! Both these morons represent what the U$A has become. An empire who's lust for $ & power is a threat to the entire globe. ..."
"... A genuine scandal that cries for a Special Prosecutor. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar¨> Kushner tried to shakedown the Qataris. ..."
"... The PBS Newshour led off with the dim-witted Donnie,jr meeting with a sleazy Russian lawyer, but never even mentioned the more substantive Kushner story...I wonder why. ..."
"... With a bit more thought, it seems plausible that this Russian lawyer and her promoter friends simply staged a shakedown -- evidence of the meeting, i.e. emails to Jr, held as extortion collateral. Guessing the timing was pretty close to G20 to punish Trump for being nice to Vlad, if you want to read more into it for a possible link to DNC, but the thing is coming out of left field where it otherwise makes little sense. Pretty worn-out ruse, get a shot of the mark with a hooker, threaten to reveal, etc. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Pence building support to step in when Trumpy goes down. Pence is starting to look like a backstabbing little shit, imo. ..."
"... During the meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 get-together, the concept of a joint cyber-security program was raised. My understanding is that Trump seemed OK with that, but the US establishment closed it down. Anything to do with Lavrov's comment that the cyber-security issue is intimately tied in with pornography and pedophilia? ..."
"... The email from from Rob Goldstone was so over the top in its description of the "crown prosecutor of Russia" and his government's willingness to help the Trump campaign that one could reasonably assume it was a set-up. But by whom? Was Goldstone an accomplice of the deep state? Read the fake news and find out that he's an old Trump hanger-on who's done business with the family on occasion and has operated with Russian nationals on a regular basis and currently is an agent for a Russian "aspiring" pop star. Was he turned by evil forces? What about femme fatale lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya? Another deep state operative? Or was she just acting on behalf of Russian business people looking for relief from the Magnitsky Act? What did she have to offer and where did she get it? From Hillary or the DNC? Does that even make sense? How far down the fucking rabbit hole is one prepared to go? Better get the Saker or Pepe Escobar to straighten this out. ..."
"... It already has. The Brit was a snake oil salesman, the lawyer was a mid-level commercial lawyer who was involved with Fusion GPS (see Steele Report) had nothing to show that the Russian government was interfering against Clinton, Donald Jr. is a naive moron who needs to have a sceptic like the Amazing Randi as his minder and the Clintonists demonstrate yet again that they are a bunch of deranged moronic losers who will continue losing, which we knew already anyway. So move along no, there really is nothing to see. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Case 1:

A Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt about Donald Trump. They deliver some dirty fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.

Case 2:

Some lobbyist for Russian business interests contacts the Trump campaign with a promise to deliver some dirt on Hillary Clinton. She meets campaign officials but no dirt on Clinton is offered. Instead the lobbyist uses the time to lobby for the business' cause. There is no follow up.

Question:

Which of the two cases stinks of "collusion with the Russians"?

Posted by b on July 11, 2017 at 01:31 PM | Permalink

Anonymous | Jul 11, 2017 1:45:08 PM | 1

This new leak on Trump Jr. actually sounds weird and will no doubt give the anti-Trump/Russia crowd lots of credit. This is what they have been waiting for.

Also...
White House: Clinton campaign colluded with Ukraine
http://freedomslighthouse.net/2017/07/10/sarah-huckabee-hits-media-for-ignoring-dnc-collusion-with-ukraine-vs-trump-nothing-inappropriate-about-don-jr-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-audio-71017/

Daniel LaRusso | Jul 11, 2017 1:50:05 PM | 2
Can someone supply a source for Case #1?

I'm kind of assuming there's no actual proof of the claim that the Steele report was commissioned by DNC or HRC but i'd like to read what the claim is.

bc | Jul 11, 2017 2:07:17 PM | 3
@2 Daniel LaRusso
Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democratic ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.

Moreover, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.

In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign.

More straggly bits here .

b | Jul 11, 2017 2:22:46 PM | 4
Trump junior today tweeted the email-exchange that set up the meeting the meeting with the Russian lobbyist.

He did so because the NYT had threatened to publish them:

After being told that The Times was about to publish the content of the emails, instead of responding to a request for comment, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out images of them himself on Tuesday.

Who gave the NYT the private emails of Donald Trump junior? Would that not be a criminal offense?

Anonymous | Jul 11, 2017 2:26:20 PM | 5
The guy, who sent Trump Jr. the emails is called Rob Goldstone and works in the music industry. Michael Goldstone, who is in that industry as well is partner of Peter Mensch, the husband of Louise Mensch, Trump and Russia hater. I wonder, if the Goldstones are related?
karlof1 | Jul 11, 2017 2:40:42 PM | 6
It's become clear to me that the entire "Russiagate Scandal" is an elaborate operation to cover up HRC's crimes committed through her foundation and as Secretary of State--that's where a very good case for treason lies, massive tax fraud and illegal uses of a non-profit org that isn't even properly chartered in all 50 states and in numerous other nations, amid other felonious behavior. Note that since the Podesta/DNC email leak that essentially zero members of the Propaganda System have examined the mass of evidence of wrongdoing it contains. Instead, we were immediately treated to "Russiagate," and Sanders played right along with HRC et al.

Charles Ortel is who Tyler Durden discovered as being the primary investigator into the foundation's massive fraud and wrote it up here, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown And Ortel's created his own website to compile evidence and educate the public, http://charlesortel.com/

The Clintons were recruited by the Deep State and became some of its most effective members in advancing its cause--the primary Foreign and Domestic policy drive of the Outlaw US Empire was formulated and published during Clinton's second term: Joint Vision 2010 , wherein the goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the entire planet and its people--GHW Bush's "New World Order"--was put into practice. The illegal war against Serbia was its first test, which was launched after supporting Chechen terrorists to tie down Russia so it would be unable to help. Also, the prepping of TWTC for demolition by terrorists was done simultaneously. As with the OKC bombing, the motive for 911 was the destruction of evidence implicating numerous Deep State members and overall Deep State activity that would finally tear the veil from years of multi-billion dollar graft and corruption.

So, defending the Clintons differs little from defending the Deep State since they've operated as a team for decades, which is why we've seen "Russiagate" continue on without any credible evidence to justify its existence. And, we'll continue to be plagued by it no matter how much pushback is done because of what its designed to protect. Comey did nothing with all the evidence he had because he's part of the Deep State team, which is why he hasn't been arrested for his own law breaking, http://theduran.com/comey-stole-memos-leaked-classified-information/ And the primary reason why Trump's Justice Dept. hasn't indicted either is because its head--and many others within Trump's admin.--are GOBS--Good Old Boys--that are also part of or associated with the Deep State network.

So, to answer b's question, Case One is the winner by miles.

steven t johnson | Jul 11, 2017 2:46:31 PM | 7
"Which of the two cases stinks of 'collusion with the Russians'"?

If you insist on playing...the one where nobody is being paid is the one more like collusion, cooperation, conspiracy, the one where two actors have the same goals. The one where somebody gets paid is just ordinary dirty business. A payoff is not an agenda.

As to the larger nonsense about Trump, he lost the election, so obviously the Russians didn't steal it. That Electoral College BS did it. All the Russian allegations are moot, they didn't make a difference.

Anonymous | Jul 11, 2017 2:47:59 PM | 8
b

Indeed, what we see is another deep-state leak to punish Trump and Russia, the writing of Goldstone is also just what the anti-Trump and Russia crowd needed at this time. All boils down to who this russian woman is I guess.

Pnyx | Jul 11, 2017 2:51:16 PM | 9
What a nonsense all this is. But ultimately it's not essential if WW3 is started by a president Tronald or a president Pence.
Piotr Berman | Jul 11, 2017 2:56:30 PM | 10
The art of "opposition research" is a bit mysterious. "Everybody does it", at least in USA, but the results differ. The "Russian collusion" angle was a disastrous mistake of Hillary camp because it turned out to be a ho-hum story, while they could nail Trump for a ton of infractions that would be (a) easy to explain (b) have actual victims to be displayed in campaign spots.

And of course it was a disastrous mistake of DNC not to twist hands of Hillary to resign. Bernie had very nice "message discipline" and hardly any "baggage" and Hillary was tainted by e-mail problems and she did not have Trumpian flair to dismiss it. Mental experiments: get 10 refurbished car wrecks and put them on two lots. Make Trump sell on one of them, and Hillary on the other. Which lot will get empty sooner? (Devil's thought: Bernie's used car lot, what would happen there?)

CE | Jul 11, 2017 2:56:59 PM | 11
@7:

Here's rabid Bershidsky on who she is: Trump's low-level Russia connection

Even he doesn't want to be seen eating the latest nothing burger.

karlof1 | Jul 11, 2017 2:58:00 PM | 12
Gee, guess my post about "Russiagate" being a cover-up for HRC and Deep State got eaten. What a shame.
Oui | Jul 11, 2017 3:29:54 PM | 13
CIA-Gate - thoughts? Did MI-6 and CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ○
Oui | Jul 11, 2017 3:30:20 PM | 14
Follow-up ... 'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow ○
Oui | Jul 11, 2017 3:48:34 PM | 16
I am waiting for new developments linking NSA/GCHQ intelligence collusion with Unit 8200 in the so-called "RussiaGate"

Seems to me Netanyahu is a revengeful guy and Obama interfered in the last Israeli election for the Knesset. The Democrats pushed through the Iran nuclear deal and HRC was the darling of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Egypt's Morsi and Erdogan of Turkey. The Saudi King was not amused and intelligence cooperation with Israel's Mossad has intensified. Thinking support for Al Nusra near the Golan Heights in the fight to overthrow Assad in Damascus. Useful "intelligence" from Unit 8200 in Ghouta gas attack, the so-called intercepts of the SAA generals.

The mobsters from Russia, Ukraine and Moldova are welcome guests in London and Tel Aviv ... see Katsyv, Martash Investment and money laundering thru Hapoalim Bank. NATO and Soros Crossed Russia's Red Line in Europe

RUKidding | Jul 11, 2017 3:50:04 PM | 17
Which case stinks of collusion with Russia?

Can I choose: both?

At this point, anything's possible.

Both Clinton and Trump are crooks, but in different kinds of ways. Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Paul Singer, Rubio Donor

karlof1 | Jul 11, 2017 4:24:20 PM | 19
Since my first comment went into cyberspace and seems to have disappeared, I'll write another in similar vein.

First, to answer b's query: #1. Cristina Lalia provides plenty of grounds for this choice by citing HRC/DNC collusion with Ukrainian officials in an attempt to get dirt on Trump, which is now conveniently forgotten, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47414.htm

Tyler Durden's been on the trail of the massive cover-up known as "Russiagate" since his Zerohedge article illuminating the investigation done by Charles Ortel. His most recent item deals with Comey's lawbreaking and is most damning, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47405.htm

Here's the link to Durden's piece on the Clinton Foundation, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown and the link to the website Ortel made to document his investigation, http://charlesortel.com/

In my disappeared comment, I provided a rationale for Russiagate's purpose as a cover up for HRC & DNC crimes and Sander's willingness to go along. Alas, I should have copied before hitting post. I also provided the rationale for why Russiagate won't go away despite the lack of evidence--It's ultimate purpose is to cover up Deep State crimes and its primary purpose since GHW Bush declared the New World Order, which was left for the Clintons to organize. Also note how the running of Russiagate is bipartisan--where are the senate investigations into HRC, DNC, Podesta, Comey, Lynch, and who knows how many others: Why don't Republicans smell the blood and go for the kill of so many allegedly hated opponents?

Well, my comment serves the purpose but isn't as juicy as the first. Yes, I copied this one before clicking post.

Ort | Jul 11, 2017 5:38:06 PM | 20
Which Campaign Truly Colluded With Russia?

Mu. I think this is a trick question. ;)

To me, "colluded with Russia" implies collusion with the Russian government, or state. At any rate, this is the gravamen of the current US/Western pandemic of acute Russophobia. Even the complementary, or corollary, Putinphobia isn't directed towards Putin as a person -- Putin is only the hysterics' "Great Satan" because he personifies the Russian state/government. As far as I can see, the allegations concerning both campaigns involve individual actors, some of whom happen to be Russian.

Even the ambiguous claims that Steele solicited and bribed "(former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt about Donald Trump" supports this view.

Sure, those Russian spooks and Kremlin insiders could have been acting in an official capacity, i.e. on behalf of the Russian government. But they might simply be corrupt, venal apparatchiks willing to make some money doing a private deal with Steele, et al. So, I don't think either sketchy scenario establishes true collusion with Russia.

All that said, of the two, Case 1 stinks to high heaven.

The parties described in Case 2 aren't angels, of course. If accurate, the Russian lobbyist's "tease", or "bait and switch" is deplorable-- at least Team Trump would think so, since she wasted their time.

But it's not exactly a scandal that any campaign would welcome negative information ("dirt") about an opponent. Only naïve or idealistic True Believers in "good government" would be outraged at such routine, mundane skulduggery.

The Case 1 scenario is a different, highly-scented kettle of fish: here, the campaign is orchestrating dirty tricks to injure its opponent.

Conclusion: strictly speaking, no evidence of "true collusion with Russia"-- but Case 1 stinks for the reasons given.

stumpy | Jul 11, 2017 5:44:02 PM | 21
Cannot set aside the Clinton Foundation, CGI, bankers'speeches and especially Bill w. Lynch on the tarmac and the family mail server. No matter how much the bottom-feeding deep swamp state nips at Trump's ankles, so far he's still on top.

Trump Jr. willing to testify, wonder how much leakage Congress can take if we open the foreign superPAC donation can of worms.

Piotr @ 9 -- Hillary gets 1000 idiots in black headscarves with sticks to bash the cars to pieces and hide them under a pile of Starbucks cups.

Trump sells the cars, builds a Casino.

nobody | Jul 11, 2017 5:44:42 PM | 22
Case 2:

Some lobbyist for Russian business interests contacts the Trump campaign with a promise to deliver some dirt on Hillary Clinton. She meets campaign officials but no dirt on Clinton is offered. Instead the lobbyist uses the time to lobby for the business' cause. There is no follow up.

This undermines your credibility, b. This operation -- and it sounds like an operation -- was obviously a trap of sorts. "There is no follow up". Yes, the genius son figured out. After changing his schedule on demand (that was a test to see how desperate he is for it) and finally meeting the person he believed was a "Russian government attorney" bring info from "Crown prosecuter", Mr. Peter Principle realizes that he was played. I bet he's sweating bullets for a while now.

On a side note, isn't amazing that such stupid incompetents (such as D Jr.) get to enjoy the fat of the land while the rest of us work at the plantation. What a thoughtless idiot. You're fired, Donnie.

ab initio | Jul 11, 2017 6:06:45 PM | 24
b,

Yes, indeed! Who gave the NY Times, Donnie Jr's emails? Will Papa Donnie investigate?

JSonofa | Jul 11, 2017 6:10:14 PM | 25
How Do You Spell Seth Rich?

"New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into question."

Hawaiiguy | Jul 11, 2017 6:23:35 PM | 26
I'm going with option 3 Jack, the biggest collusion in the US elections was AIPAC. and it will continue to be so. Astounding people have no issue with dual citizens of Israel lobbying and actually writing bills and laws for AmeriKa!
Peter AU | Jul 11, 2017 6:37:19 PM | 27
The big takeaway from all the Russiagate garbage - there was collusion between heads of intel and Obama admin to install Clinton as president, and now the same collusion to take down Trump.
karlof1 | Jul 11, 2017 6:51:15 PM | 28
Hawaiiguy @24--

Yes, you illuminate one of several elephants in the room. Some of us can actually see them all, but apparently very few journalists or police investigators can.

Peter AU @25--

It appears the Deep State didn't trust Trump to keep its many secrets covering its illegalities secret. It also seems the Republicans want to keep them secret too since we don't see any sign of any investigation into Clinton Foundation, Comey's law breaking, or anything else of importance.

likklemore | Jul 11, 2017 7:27:32 PM | 29
There is that other country in the Gulf that is

Special And Off Limits - No Special Prosecutor for Clinton. Russia hacking DNC was determined by Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike has an odor. The DNC refused the FBI to examine the claim of Russia hacking their servers. Why?

"Something Stinks Here" - CrowdStrike Revises, Retracts Parts Of Explosive Russian Hacking Report

Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.

Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.

"Credibility of Cyber Firm that Claimed Russia Hacked the DNC Comes Under Serious Question"

"What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian Billionaire and Google"

"Now here are the latest developments courtesy of Voice of America:"[.]

michaelj72 | Jul 11, 2017 8:14:50 PM | 30
from the NYT story

...There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails...." notice that it is no longer "alleged Russian hacking", BUT "Russian government computer hacking"

I have seen no hard evidence of that at all. Go believe what you want, the Ruling Class has decided on their stupid ignorant narrative which will/may drive us to nuclear war.

This whole story and anything related now bores the sh*t out of me, and I will never again post anything remotely related to it

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

likklemore | Jul 11, 2017 8:43:40 PM | 31
The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 outing the names

If anyone should be investigated in Washington, it ought to be Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Mark Warner and their staffers."

Democrats intentionally used disinformation from Russia to attack Trump, campaign aides

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/11/democrats-spread-false-russian-information-on-trum/

Christopher Steele says in a court filing that his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world" ... more >

While the liberal news media hunts for evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, the public record shows that Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump and attack his administration.
The disinformation came in the form of a Russian-fed dossier written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It contains a series of unverified criminal charges against Mr. Trump's campaign aides, such as coordinating Moscow's hacking of Democratic Party computers.

Some Democrats have widely circulated the discredited information. Mr. Steele was paid by the Democrat-funded opposition research firm Fusion GPS with money from a Hillary Clinton backer. Fusion GPS distributed the dossier among Democrats and journalists. The information fell into the hands of the FBI, which used it in part to investigate Mr. Trump's campaign aides.


The same Democrats who have condemned Russia's election interference via plying fake news and hacking email servers have quoted freely from the Steele anti-Trump memos derived from creatures of the Kremlin.

In other words, there is public evidence of significant, indirect collusion between Democrats and Russian disinformation, a Trump supporter said. .

"If anyone colluded with the Russians, it was the Democrats," said a former Trump campaign adviser who asked not to be identified because of the pending investigations. "After all, they've routinely shopped around false claims from the debunked Steele dossier, which listed sources including senior Kremlin officials.
If anyone should be investigated in Washington, it ought to be Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Mark Warner and their staffers."

That is a reference to Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Sen. Mark R. Warner, Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California, Democrat on the House intelligence panel.[.]

james | Jul 11, 2017 10:37:20 PM | 32
who needs a soap opera when you have it all on a regular thanks the usa... another friggin' usa scandal on the front pages, over and over and over... i am so tired of these wacky usa based stories and will happy when they are over..

for those who love reading these kinds of things emptywheel has a post on this.. i stopped reading her mostly as it was 24/7 as the stomach ( usa ) turns 24/7...

Perimetr | Jul 11, 2017 11:43:54 PM | 33
Re: steven t johnson | Jul 11, 2017 2:46:31 PM | 6 you write:
"As to the larger nonsense about Trump, he lost the election, so obviously the Russians didn't steal it. That Electoral College BS did it."

Sorry, Trump actually won the election according to the US Constitution. You are free to complain about the electoral system, but that doesn't negate the election results, regardless of you opinions.

ben | Jul 11, 2017 11:57:38 PM | 34
"Both Clinton and Trump are crooks, but in different kinds of ways."

Posted by: RUKidding | Jul 11, 2017 3:50:04 PM | 16

Yep! Both these morons represent what the U$A has become. An empire who's lust for $ & power is a threat to the entire globe.

joeymac | Jul 12, 2017 12:28:14 AM | 35
A genuine scandal that cries for a Special Prosecutor. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar¨> Kushner tried to shakedown the Qataris.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/07/impeachment-president-trump-now-much-likely.html¨> Washingtonsblog´s analysis.

The PBS Newshour led off with the dim-witted Donnie,jr meeting with a sleazy Russian lawyer, but never even mentioned the more substantive Kushner story...I wonder why.

stumpy | Jul 12, 2017 12:30:16 AM | 36
With a bit more thought, it seems plausible that this Russian lawyer and her promoter friends simply staged a shakedown -- evidence of the meeting, i.e. emails to Jr, held as extortion collateral. Guessing the timing was pretty close to G20 to punish Trump for being nice to Vlad, if you want to read more into it for a possible link to DNC, but the thing is coming out of left field where it otherwise makes little sense. Pretty worn-out ruse, get a shot of the mark with a hooker, threaten to reveal, etc.

Meanwhile, Pence building support to step in when Trumpy goes down. Pence is starting to look like a backstabbing little shit, imo.

james | Jul 12, 2017 12:57:55 AM | 37
did pence look any other way previously? pence - good word for about how much he is worth..

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 12, 2017 1:45:28 AM | 38

Leaving aside Shrillary's inherently amoral nature, and focusing solely on Trump Jr's story, I've noticed two interesting aspects.
  1. Trump Jr's story is too inconveniently innocent and plausible and The Swamp is faux-angrily determined to undermine it no matter how ridiculous the convoluted rhetoric has to become.
  2. Zio-Jazeera and BBC are being VERY CAREFUL to ensure that the pro and anti Trump camps deliver their respective messages with minimal interruption. Imo, they're both letting the Public decide who is, and who isn't telling porkies.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 12, 2017 1:45:28 AM | 38 /div

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 12, 2017 2:02:58 AM | 39
If "nothing-burger" wasn't already in the Official Lexicon, it will be when this episode approaches its conclusion.
Peter AU | Jul 12, 2017 2:21:24 AM | 40
Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 12, 2017 1:45:28 AM | 36

Interesting UK is hedging their bets on this one. Did it also with AIIB.

PavewayIV | Jul 12, 2017 3:35:34 AM | 41
I am giddy with delight at the evil bastards in the U.S. deep state tearing themselves apart. The psychopaths won't be defeated by any means and the U.S. public will just be mildly confused by what's going on and continue to elect new ones. Obviously nobody is going to jail no matter how bad this gets - that just never happens (except for 'little people'). But it's somehow satisfying for now to watch the Washington elite punch themselves in the face and bleed for a while.

I know - very ephemeral. We'll be at war soon enough. It's the proven 'standard distraction' in political meltdowns like this and/or during financial collapse. Both are in play now. [sigh...]

Anon | Jul 12, 2017 4:02:36 AM | 42
PavewayIV

"I know - very ephemeral. We'll be at war soon enough. It's the proven 'standard distraction' in political meltdowns like this and/or during financial collapse. Both are in play now. [sigh...] "

Unfortunately yes, thats the only rational result it seems, these liberal, deep state, msm are simply psychopaths with their ongoing hate. What else are they demanding? Disgusting people..

So watch out for more attacks on Syria or perhaps North Korea.
And that Russia/US making up,.. wont happen.

Anonymous | Jul 12, 2017 6:20:01 AM | 45
During the meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 get-together, the concept of a joint cyber-security program was raised. My understanding is that Trump seemed OK with that, but the US establishment closed it down. Anything to do with Lavrov's comment that the cyber-security issue is intimately tied in with pornography and pedophilia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wz_56lRh4&t=9m25s

ralphieboy | Jul 12, 2017 7:07:15 AM | 46
Yunno, any purported collusion with the Russian government (as opposed to private entities from a foreign nation) is the least of the problems I have with Trump.

Most of all, my problems lie with the obvious and blatant conflicts of interest between his office and his business dealings. The Clinton Foundation is a purely charitable operation, the Trump Foundation is used as a means of recycling money to and from Trump businesses.

And people made jokes and memes about his "covfefe" tweet, but that simply demonstrates to me that a major channel of communication controlled by the executive branch is uttering nonsense and there is nobody to check or regulate it.

That indicates the extent to which Trump is not qualified, in terms of background, experience or character, for the office of the Presidency.

peter | Jul 12, 2017 7:27:15 AM | 47
After a half page of comments I have yet to see one that might even consider that there might be culpability on the part of the Trumps or Russian officialdom. Even the most thoughtful of this board's contributors won't go there. I guess the latest revelations are just more fake news but oddly enough nobody in DC is calling it that.

The email from from Rob Goldstone was so over the top in its description of the "crown prosecutor of Russia" and his government's willingness to help the Trump campaign that one could reasonably assume it was a set-up. But by whom? Was Goldstone an accomplice of the deep state? Read the fake news and find out that he's an old Trump hanger-on who's done business with the family on occasion and has operated with Russian nationals on a regular basis and currently is an agent for a Russian "aspiring" pop star. Was he turned by evil forces? What about femme fatale lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya? Another deep state operative? Or was she just acting on behalf of Russian business people looking for relief from the Magnitsky Act? What did she have to offer and where did she get it? From Hillary or the DNC? Does that even make sense? How far down the fucking rabbit hole is one prepared to go? Better get the Saker or Pepe Escobar to straighten this out.

The unalterable fact is that Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort were all over the opportunity for Russian help like flies on shit. Whether or not there was any follow-up will be determined in due course by special counselor Mueller as he hoovers up all the email traffic and phone records surrounding this matter.

To all those who express exasperation that a year of investigation has uncovered exactly nothing I say bear in mind that none of the principals have yet to testify before Mueller or the Senate Intelligence Committee. Kushner keeps revising his list of meetings with Russian nationals as more information emerges. His security clearance may come under review. The rest of the crew are lawyered up to the nuts and waiting for their turn in the barrel. I drool at the prospect of Al Franken taking these clowns apart. I know it's anathema for posters to face the possibility that their idols might somehow be guilty of even a smidgen of what has been alleged but that says more about them than what's emerging day by day.

Ghostship | Jul 12, 2017 7:30:04 AM | 48
>>>>Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 12, 2017 2:02:58 AM | 39
If "nothing-burger" wasn't already in the Official Lexicon, it will be when this episode approaches its conclusion.
It already has. The Brit was a snake oil salesman, the lawyer was a mid-level commercial lawyer who was involved with Fusion GPS (see Steele Report) had nothing to show that the Russian government was interfering against Clinton, Donald Jr. is a naive moron who needs to have a sceptic like the Amazing Randi as his minder and the Clintonists demonstrate yet again that they are a bunch of deranged moronic losers who will continue losing, which we knew already anyway. So move along no, there really is nothing to see.

[Jul 12, 2017] Flashback Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election by Cristina Laila

Jul 12, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election

July 11, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The fake news media has their knives drawn over Donald Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer during the presidential campaign. Never Trumper and GOP Senator, Susan Collins even called on the Senate Intelligence panel to interview Don Jr.

These media sycophants are however, silent over Hillary Clinton's antics during the presidential election which makes Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting pale in comparison.

Hillary Clinton's aides met with Ukrainian government officials and journalists specifically to dig up dirt on team Trump. The information gathered was then sent to the DNC and Hillary's camp.

Politico reported back in a January 2017 article:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
They actually tried to downplay their efforts after Trump won the election. Certainly it was a shock to everyone working in opposition to Trump:
Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining "we were stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to interfere into the campaign affairs." Shulyar said her work with Chalupa "didn't involve the campaign," and she specifically stressed that "We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort."
Evidence to the contrary
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. "Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa," recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. "They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa," he said, adding "Oksana was keeping it all quiet," but "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.

Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr. https://t.co/zxiOU3cxN6

! Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) July 10, 2017

Where is the call for Hillary Clinton and her aides to be interviewed by the Senate Intelligence panel? Why isn't the media calling for an investigation into the Democrats' and Hillary Clinton's many crimes committed during the 2016 presidential election?

The Democrats unmasked Trump and his private associates to spy on his campaign. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a tarmac and a few days later, Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton.

Loretta Lynch reportedly interfered in the election when she ordered the FBI to refer to the Hillary email investigation as a 'matter'.

Comey also gave classified memos to a friend to leak to the press.

But Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer for 20 minutes and now some are calling it 'borderline treason'. Unbelievable.

Here is Don Jr.'s statement regarding his 20 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer who wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act. According to the left, this is worth investigating. The real story underneath this is who put this lawyer up to this? Stay tuned because the Democrats will soon be regretting their witch hunt as the tables slowly begin to turn on them.

This article was first published by The Gateway Pundit -

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Jul 11, 2017] Russian Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr. I Didn t Have Clinton Info They Wanted

Looks like recent leak is another fake...
www.unz.com

MOSCOW - The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump's son to press her client's interest in the Magnitsky Act - not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that," Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

When asked how Trump Jr. seemed to have the impression that she had information about the Democratic National Committee, she responded:

"It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted."

Trump Jr. has confirmed that the meeting occurred, saying in a statement to The New York Times that he attended "a short introductory meeting" with the lawyer, where the topic of conversation was primarily about adoption.

On Monday, Trump Jr. seemed to confirm that he had been offered information about Hillary or her campaign but insisted that nothing untoward in the meeting had occurred.

"Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to listen," he tweeted, seemingly sarcastic.

The New York Times on Monday reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before the meeting that the information Veselnitskaya had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's candidacy.

But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government.

[Jul 11, 2017] Who Is the Real Enemy

Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so they U.S. has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so they U.S. has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation.

Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.

So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things. First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere that must be respected by Russia and China.

Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.

Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels. Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.

It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter, but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.

Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."

The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.

Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shi'ite militias being provided by Iran and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.

As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.

Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their horror at a possible Shi'ite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.

The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon, supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel, which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.

Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change direction? Unfortunately, no.

Jake says: July 11, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT

The title of the article tells it all.

Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.

Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by WASP Elites.

Priss Factor ,Website, July 11, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT
US foreign policy is simple. Zionist Emperor goes thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever nation based on his own interests. That's about it.

Priss Factor , July 11, 2017 at 4:49 am GMT

In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

No, the only threats are the following three:

Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.

The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.

The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole. It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.

Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.

Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2017/07/pattern-recognition-great-sin-than.html

The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.

Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading the savage genes.

Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of the West.

Replies: @Z-man

Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.

Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! , @K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's watson is a hindu indian and so is the head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM is collaborating with the american defense organisation DARPA) instead of helping india achieve technological competence. And most of other super intelligent indians also india is losing them to the west.

(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)

Wally , July 11, 2017 at 5:02 am GMT

The US govt. does what "that shitty little country" tells them to do.

The True Cost of Parasite Israel. Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

RobinG , July 11, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"

Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out Cynthia McKinney's twitter.

#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update

@Durruti Nice action approach to cure ills of society.

Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.

*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).

The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.

Feel free to contact.

Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.

For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .

In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

MEexpert , July 11, 2017 at 5:50 am GMT

In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.

The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him.

That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.

The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.

jilles dykstra , July 11, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944. The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Sauds would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism ?

Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest. That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.

Ludwig Watzal Website, July 11, 2017 at 7:01 am GMT
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
animalogic , July 11, 2017 at 7:32 am GMT
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even. But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go."

Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?

The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.

Paul , July 11, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

200 Words Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)

Replies:

@Wizard of Oz

I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,

@Corvinus

"Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."

Adjust tin foil hat accordingly.

Realist , July 11, 2017 at 8:24 am GMT

"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"

Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago.

Chad, July 11, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.

I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.

Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?

Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.

USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw.

It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.

And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country.

So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go."

Bingo.

Replies:

@Jake

Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.

The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,

Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.

Anonymous , July 11, 2017 at 9:33 am GMT

@Priss Factor

US foreign policy is simple. Zionist Emperor goes thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever nation based on his own interests.

That's about it. That's most of unz.com summed up in a single sentence!

Johnny Smoggins , July 11, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

The casus belli of America's hostility towards Iran is the 3000 year old grudge that the Jews have been holding against Persia.
Z-man , July 11, 2017 at 11:22 am GMT
@Priss Factor

In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

No, the only threats are the following three:

Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.

The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.

The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole. It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.

Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.

Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2017/07/pattern-recognition-great-sin-than.html

The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.

Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading the savage genes.

Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of the West.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yB69UkJGwk

Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.

Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.

Israel, the REAL enemy!

eah , July 11, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT
The WH should focus on the USA.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.

Greg Bacon Website, July 11, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest.

You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.

The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.

The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies

Wizard of Oz , July 11, 2017 at 11:50 am GMT

@Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?

Replies:

@Sowhat

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/former-nist-employee-speaks-out-on-wtc-investigation/

@NoseytheDuke

A better question: Have YOU read The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?

Sowhat , July 11, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

@eah The WH should focus on the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
anarchyst , July 11, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them.

The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.

1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".

2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"–goyim or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective "tribe".

3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider" will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.

4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.

Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses

Replies:

@ThreeCranes

Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).

Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.

As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.

Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe. , @bjondo Jews/Judaism bring death, destruction, misery.

Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.

Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.

bjondo , July 11, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

SA is the tail wagged by US. US is the tail wagged by internal Jew. Israel/Jewry the enemy of all.

Terrorism is Israeli weapon to take down Sunnis and Shias.

US is Israel's go-to donkey.

Sauds gone tomorrow if wished. And they may be with Arabia broken into pieces. Yinon still active.

Agent76 , July 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us

Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s. You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/07/we-have-met-the-evil-empire-and-it-is-us/

ThreeCranes , July 11, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT
@anarchyst Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.

1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".

2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective "tribe".

3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider" will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.

4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.

Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).

Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.

As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.

Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.

Sowhat , July 11, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/former-nist-employee-speaks-out-on-wtc-investigation/
virgile , July 11, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA from terrorists attacks.

Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.

SolontoCroesus , July 11, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
Saudi Arabian Manal al-Sharif is the latest (((MSM))) media darling; she wrote a book about being imprisoned for driving in Saudi Arabia. She is attempting to expand a movement to strike down the Saudi ban on women driving. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/sunday/saudi-arabia-women-driving-ban.html

At the same time, (((MSM))) gleefully focuses on Iranian women who are wearing white hijab in protest of restrictions on women's attire in Iran. http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/05/24/why-women-and-some-men-in-iran-are-wearing-white-headscarves-on-wednesdays/

I think these women ought to get together.

In Iran, women drive.

In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi companies owned and run by women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/iranian-women-take-the-wh_b_879041.html

Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores. It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.

Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.

What could Saudi women teach Iranian women?

NoseytheDuke , July 11, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?

siberiancat , July 11, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

Why is is so difficult to avoid this ugly term 'regime'? Does it really add anything to the discourse?
anonymous , July 11, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals.

They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty, living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.

LondonBob , July 11, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT
http://mihsislander.org/2017/06/full-transcript-james-mattis-interview/

Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.

Don Bacon , July 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
Corvinus , July 11, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."

Adjust tin foil hat accordingly.


Father O'Hara , July 11, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Jake The title of the article tells it all.

Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.

Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was pro-Arabic/Islamic.

And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.

So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.

Jake , July 11, 2017 at 4:23 pm GMT
@Chad I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.

I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.

Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?

Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.

And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country.

So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go."

Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.

The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.

Durruti , July 11, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

1,000 Words @RobinG #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"

Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out Cynthia McKinney's twitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxcnaNND4XM

#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.

Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.

*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).

The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.

Feel free to contact.

Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.

For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .

In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

SolontoCroesus , July 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT

Scholars at Mercatus Center, George Mason Univ. https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions are unfunded or underfunded.

I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.

Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy, and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded, Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?

____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.

The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.

[Jul 11, 2017] Another day another leak, now about Ms Natalia Veselnitskaya

Jul 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , July 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Independent:
https://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russian-lawyer-steele-dossier-natalia-veselnitskaya-gps-fusion-a7834541.html

A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for

In a statement, Mark Corallo added: "Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier."

Fusion GPS, which is based in Washington DC and was established by former Wall Street Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, found itself in the spotlight earlier this year after it emerged it was behind an "oppo research" dossier containing unproven and often salacious allegations about Mr Trump.

The company had originally been hired by Republican rivals of Mr Trump during the primary campaign. After he secured the party's nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic financial supporters of Ms Clinton. In the summer of 2016, GPS hired former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, to help their work .
####

Plenty more smoke at the link. What is is with the Americans needing to have their dick in every pie? Once a dick is burnt, doesn't one learn a lesson? Apparently not.

That Fusion GPS seems to be playing both sides smells far more of arms length US intel operations, though natural greed certainly cannot be ruled out. I'm looking forward to this being dissected and Fusion GPS having its balls roasted publicly.

Everyone can play The Link Game because no actual evidence is required to be produced. Genius!

marknesop , July 10, 2017 at 7:52 pm
The Donald is in a unique position; he is not a member of the political class, and likely this term, if he makes it, will be his last fling at politics, to mutual satisfaction – I doubt it's as much of a gas as he thought it would be. He therefore owes nobody anything, and doesn't need anybody's support after he rides into the sunset; that's what independently wealthy means.

He can therefore nail anyone's hide to the barn door without fear that it will damage his political aspirations or legacy.

Do it, Donald. Drop the hammer.

[Jul 10, 2017] Reminder: Hiding US Lies About Libyan Invasion

Jul 10, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , July 10, 2017 at 12:59 pm
A reminder.

Consortium News: Hiding US Lies About Libyan Invasion
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/07/hiding-us-lies-about-libyan-invasion/

Exclusive: In 2016, when a British parliamentary report demolished the excuse for the U.S. and its allies invading Libya in 2011, it should have been big news, but the U.S. mainstream media looked the other way, reports Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria (Corrects to show that a Times story was published.)

In George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel 1984, the protagonist Winston Smith's job was to delve into The Times of London archive and rewrite stories that could cause trouble for the totalitarian government ruling Britain. For instance, if the government made a prediction of wheat or automobile production in their five-year plan and that prediction did not come true, Winston would go into the archives and "correct" the numbers in the article on record.

In writing a response the other day to a critic of my recently published book on Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat, I was researching how the U.S. corporate media covered a 2016 British parliamentary report on Libya that showed how then Secretary of State Clinton and other Western leaders lied about an impending genocide in Libya to justify their 2011 attack on that country .

Hillary Clinton, who according to leaked emails was the architect of the attack on Libya, said four days earlier: "When the Libyan people sought to realize their democratic aspirations, they were met by extreme violence from their own government."

Sen. John Kerry, at the time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chimed in: "Time is running out for the Libyan people. The world needs to respond immediately."
####

Plenty more at the link and all the more reason that the Pork Pie News Networks need to be flushed away to make way for those who actually want to do their jobs and will not be fobbed, bought or intimidated off. Or co-opted.

et Al , July 10, 2017 at 1:09 pm
Via Antiwar.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

marknesop , July 10, 2017 at 7:41 pm
So say we; so say we all. And that's the tried-and-true formula which has allowed Washington so many tilts at the regime-change windmill – mention extreme violence exercised by a brutal dictator who has no regard for human rights (which have passed into the realm of sanctity that none dares challenge), and stress the urgency which does not allow time for discussion. Act now, talk later. If a disaster ensues, it was worth the risk – it might have worked out. Time for the phase I have mentioned so many times before: say it with me, will you? "This is no time for finger-pointing. Nobody could have foreseen that this would happen. We all have to work together to solve the problem."

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that John Kerry, known liar, claims to have personally seen ironclad evidence that Russia shot down MH17 – he saw the missile shot, and saw MH17's trace drop off the scope. He knows .

Show of hands – who believes him? Following on from that, why can he not be held to account for such a monstrous lie? Reply

[Jul 10, 2017] Steve Bannon Is Out of Trump's Doghouse and Leading the Charge Against Mueller by Joshua Green

Muller was Bush II 9/11 coverup guy. he is vulnerable.
Trump correctly identified Muller investigation to be a "witch hunt" telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with Comey "bothersome." So there should be a central figure who organizes that the defense and Bannon with his media formidable skills is suitable for this role, because he understands the political "kitchen", while Trump does not. Actually all Trump adversaries have skeletons in the closets too, so "nuclear option" is always on the table. 9/11 provides plenty such skeletons for all leading anti-Trump figures. But in the meantime it is important to know the difference between rational political move and political suicide.
The fact that Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers now bound Muller to lekk at leakers too, not only at Trump. It he does not so he is open attacks for partisanship and carrying water for Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich ..."
"... Access Hollywood. ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... by Joshua Green (July 18; Penguin Press). Copyright © 2017 by Joshua Green. ..."
"... *This article appears in the July 10, 2017, issue of ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.msn.com

For Trump, Bannon's distinctive vocabulary was another point of his appeal. Bannon gloried in the slights and scorn directed at Trump supporters, proudly insisting that elitist Clintonites looked down on them as "hobbits," "Grundoons," and -- co-opting Clinton's own ill-advised term -- "deplorables." Anyone who thought otherwise was a "mook" or a "schmendrick." And Clinton herself was the subject of a steady stream of derision, carefully pitched to Trump's own biases and insecurities and delivered with the passion of a cornerman firing up a boxer for one last grueling round in the ring. Clinton, Bannon would insist, was "a résumé," "a total phony," "terrible on the stage," "a grinder, but not smart," "a joke who hides behind a complacent media," "an apple-polisher who couldn't pass the D.C. bar exam," "thinks it's her turn" but "has never accomplished anything in her life" -- and, for good measure, was "a f---ing bull dyke."

Although Trump didn't dwell on policy details, Bannon pitched in there, too. When Trump came under fire because his campaign hadn't produced a single policy paper, Bannon arranged for Nunberg and Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit, to quickly write a white paper on Trump's immigration policies. When the campaign released it, Coulter, without disclosing her role, tweeted that it was "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."

Bannon and Breitbart also operated as shock troops for Trump's on-and-off war with Fox News. Trump's fixation with the cable network was a powerful force throughout the campaign. Although he had appeared regularly on Fox for years and had staunch backers at the network, Sean Hannity chief among them, Fox wasn't always friendly. And Trump was stung by a humiliation he'd suffered from Rupert Murdoch. He often told intimates how, as he was preparing to launch his campaign, his daughter Ivanka had arranged a lunch with Murdoch to share the news. Soon after the three of them were seated and the waiter brought their soup, Ivanka spoke up: "My father has something to tell you."

"What's that?" Murdoch said.

"He's going to run for president."

"He's not running for president," Murdoch replied without looking up from his soup.

"No, he is!" she insisted.

Murdoch changed the subject.

Trump nursed the slight for months. "He didn't even look up from his soup!" he'd complain. Nowhere was Trump's clash with the network more pronounced than in the aftermath of the first GOP debate -- sponsored by Fox News and co-moderated by Megyn Kelly -- on August 6 in Cleveland. Trump was particularly worried about Kelly, whose show he had backed out of three days earlier, complaining to a friend that she was out to get him. (Bannon had a special loathing for Kelly, just as some Fox hosts did for him. "Bannon is human garbage," one of them told me.)

When the lights went up in Cleveland, Kelly went right after Trump, confronting him with his history of sexist statements. "You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals,' " she said. "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?"

Within minutes of the debate's end, even as Trump was still nursing his grievances on live television, reporters started to realize that the revelations of his past behavior, so bluntly excavated by Kelly, had caused an intense reaction among Republican voters -- not against Trump but against Fox News. Bannon and the Breitbart editors had the same reaction and immediately turned on Kelly with a fusillade of negative articles slamming her as a backstabbing, self-promoting betrayer of the cause. Breitbart soon became the locus of pro-Trump, anti-Fox conservative anger. Between Thursday night, when the debate took place, and Sunday evening, Breitbart published 25 stories mentioning Kelly, and the site's editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow , went on CNN to accuse Fox News of "trying to take out Donald Trump" and staging "a gotcha debate."

The intensity of Republican anger stunned Fox News executives. The debate had drawn a record 24 million viewers. Now many of them were apoplectic at the network's top talent. In a panic, Ailes called Bannon and begged him to call off the attacks. "Steve, this isn't fair, and it's killing us," Ailes said. "You have to stop it." "F--- that, that was outrageous what she did!" Bannon retorted. "She pulled every trick out of the leftist playbook."

The call ended without resolution. Bannon and Ailes would not speak again for almost a year. Even after Ailes and Trump patched up their relationship, Bannon refused to relent. In fact, Breitbart's attacks on Kelly grew uglier. "Flashback: Megyn Kelly Discusses Her Husband's Penis and Her Breasts on Howard Stern," read a Breitbart headline a week after the debate. Ailes eventually dispatched his personal lawyer, Peter Johnson Jr., to the Breitbart embassy in D.C. to deliver a message to Bannon to end the war on Kelly. When he arrived, Johnson got straight to the point: If Bannon didn't stop immediately, he would never again appear on Fox News. Bannon was incensed at the threat.

"She's pure evil," he told Johnson. "And she will turn on [Ailes] one day. We're going full-bore. We're not going to stop. I'm gonna unchain the dogs." The conversation was brief and unpleasant, and it ended with a cinematic flourish. "I want you to go back to New York and quote me to Roger," Bannon said. " 'Go f--- yourself.' "

© Provided by Daily Intelligencer

Bannon remained a loyal outsider for most of the campaign. Then in August 2016, as Trump looked to be spiraling toward a blowout loss, Rebekah Mercer, whose family put millions of dollars into both Breitbart and Trump's presidential run, helped arrange for Bannon to take over. One weakness of Trump's campaign was that it was guided almost entirely by the candidate's impulses. Bannon kept Trump focused on a clear target at which to direct his ample talent for invective: "Crooked Hillary." And he brought an encyclopedic knowledge of damaging material with which to attack her, gleaned from having masterminded Peter Schweizer's best-selling 2015 book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (another Mercer-backed effort). The book gave Trump an overarching theme in which to fit his attacks, one that the media, thanks partly to Schweizer's and Bannon's efforts, was already predisposed to accept: that Clinton was corrupt. And because Bannon's convulsive extremism was now setting the tone, no one would hold him back. "It's not going to be a traditional campaign," he said shortly after his hiring.

It wasn't. The great test arrived on October 7, when David Fahrenthold, a reporter at the Washington Post, was leaked outtake footage from a 2005 Trump appearance on the NBC show Access Hollywood. "When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump told host Billy Bush. "You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy."

It looked like Trump had finally said something that even he couldn't rebound from, and Republican officials quickly began abandoning the campaign. "I am not going to defend Donald Trump -- not now, not in the future," Paul Ryan told his House colleagues in a private call. As New York reported , Reince Priebus urged Trump to quit or "go down with a worse election loss than Barry Goldwater's." Bannon stood firm, although even he feared Trump might be finished. Still, he told an associate, it wouldn't be a total loss. "Our backup strategy," he said of Clinton, "is to f--- her up so bad that she can't govern. If she gets 43 percent of the vote, she can't claim a mandate." Psyching himself up, he added, "My goal is that by November 8, when you hear her name, you're gonna throw up."

Trump, who never apologized for any offense, took the unprecedented step of expressing remorse about the comments on the Access Hollywood tape in a hastily produced web video. "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize," he said to the camera. But at Bannon's urging, his apology quickly morphed into an attack on the Clintons that made it clear he would not be dropping out. "I've said some foolish things," he said, but "Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday." With Bannon by his side, Trump would navigate the greatest crisis of his campaign by putting his foot on the gas. When I reached Bannon to ask about the strategy for the upcoming debate, he didn't miss a beat: "Attack, attack, attack, attack."

Bannon had long believed that Bill Clinton's sexual history and Hillary's alleged complicity in covering it up was something that "has to be concentrated and brought up," as he'd once put it. His original thought was that relitigating the scandals would demoralize a younger generation of feminist women unfamiliar with the tawdry details. But with the Access Hollywood tape, Bannon saw that injecting Clinton's accusers into the race would force the media to devote attention to more than just Trump's damaging tape. The trick was to do it in a way that couldn't be ignored. Watching Bill Cosby's public evisceration by his accusers the year before, Bannon had noticed that their on-camera testimony was especially powerful because most of the victims had been assaulted decades earlier and were now elderly women and thus inherently sympathetic. Bannon thought a similar dynamic would apply to the Clinton accusers.

On Sunday afternoon, 90 minutes before the start of the debate at Washington University in St. Louis, word spread in the press corps that Trump was about to hold an event. As reporters squeezed into a conference room, Trump was seated at the center of a makeshift dais flanked by four women well known to veteran political reporters: Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathy Shelton, and Paula Jones. Willey, Broaddrick, and Jones had all accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment; in 1975, a judge had appointed Hillary Clinton, then a young lawyer, to defend a man accused of raping Shelton, who was then 12 years old.

After brief remarks from Trump, the women took turns defending him and assailing the Clintons. The shock of what was unfolding prompted frenzied live coverage on cable news. As cameras panned the room, they captured Bannon standing in the back, grinning wickedly. The brazenness of Bannon's gambit, and the visual of Trump seated among Clinton's accusers, ensured that the primary imagery on TV would cease to be the Access Hollywood footage.

A plan to seat the women at the front of the debate audience to rattle Clinton and assure them a steady presence in the camera shot had to be scuttled. In the end, it didn't matter. Bannon had always believed that Trump was his own greatest weapon. As 67 million people tuned in to the debate, Trump waited for the inevitable Access Hollywood question and sprung his counterattack. "If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse," he said. "Mine are words, and his was action. His was -- what he's done to women, there's never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight."

Outside the campaign, the Clinton-accuser gambit was seen as a transparently cynical ploy to change the subject. But Trump's brain trust was seeing numbers that said attacking Clinton was succeeding. A smattering of public polls indicated the same thing: More respondents improved their opinion of Trump than of Clinton after watching the debate.

Then, within days of the debate, multiple women came forward to accuse Trump of having groped or kissed them without their consent . The wave of new accusers put the campaign on a war footing. The distinction they needed to draw, Bannon told staffers, was between Trump's "locker room" behavior and what he alleged was Bill Clinton's sexually violent behavior. "This has nothing to do with consensual sexual affairs and infidelities," Bannon said in a strategy meeting that week. "We're going to turn him into Bill Cosby. He's a violent sexual predator who physically abuses women who he assaults. And she takes the lead on the intimidation of the victims."

Trump seemed to relish the prospect of ramping up his attacks on Hillary. And then, with just over a week to go until Election Day, he got an unexpected boost when FBI director James Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's private email server. Trump's internal polls, which showed him already ascending before the Comey letter, now had him turning sharply upward in every battleground state. Out on the stump, he ratcheted up his criticism of Clinton. In speeches and ads, he channeled Bannon's conspiratorial worldview, accusing Clinton of plotting "the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special-interest friends." When Trump won the election, the lesson the 45th president took away from the campaign seemed to be that if he fought hard enough, he could survive anything.

Just six months into his presidency, Trump's faith in that proposition is being tested. His brief tenure has been shot through with turmoil, his legislative agenda is teetering on the cusp of collapse, and Robert Mueller's special-counsel investigation is an ever-present source of frustration. The Associated Press revealed that Trump's anger has reached a point where he is yelling at television sets in the White House, upset by the tenor of his coverage.

For Bannon, though, things are looking up. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord was a sign that nationalism still holds sway, as was his July speech in Poland warning of the decline of the West. The Supreme Court's decision in late June to allow the administration's travel ban to take partial effect was another victory for Bannon, its principal architect. The House just passed two immigration bills, and, White House officials say privately, Congress will soon act on four more. Bannon's feud with Kushner has quieted down. And so far, while at least ten White House officials and former aides, including Kushner, have retained lawyers in the special counsel's probe, distancing themselves from Trump, Bannon is not among them.

Instead, he's back in the bunker alongside a boss who is often angry, always under fire, and, on the matter of Russia, increasingly isolated from all but a handful of advisers and family members. Early on, Bannon's war room displayed characteristic aggression, with Kasowitz holding a press conference to slam Comey in response to the former FBI director's June 8 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. "[It] is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications," Kasowitz said. "Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers."

Many of Trump's current and former aides cheered this lunge for the jugular. "Kasowitz is a junkyard dog, exactly the guy Trump needs in his corner right now," says Barry Bennett, a former campaign adviser. In TV appearances, war-room attorney Jay Sekulow -- Trump's Lanny Davis -- suggested that Mueller is biased, a charge Trump amplified on Twitter by calling the investigation a "witch hunt" and telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with Comey "bothersome."

But those personal attacks diminished in late June, after John Dowd, a prominent Washington attorney and veteran of the Justice Department, joined Trump's defense. References to a "war room" have also been dropped for the more tempered "president's outside legal team." And on June 28, Trump's lawyers decided to postpone filing a Justice Department complaint against Comey for having helped leak memos about his conversations with Trump to reporters -- a move Bloomberg News attributed to a new attitude of "professional courtesy" toward Mueller. "It could become an adversarial relationship, but at present the legal team decided it was best to hold off and not file those complaints," says Mark Corallo, the spokesman for the legal team. Which is not to say that Bannon's bare-knuckled instincts have vanished, but rather that he's come to understand that going after Mueller personally isn't the best move -- at least right now.

Davis himself says this was a necessary course correction. "There is huge danger in attacking Mueller directly," says Davis. "[White House counsel] Don McGahn, Bannon, and the political side of the White House ought to be listening." For now, they seem to be. And at least for the time being, Trump, too, has shifted his target from Mueller and Comey to Mika Brzezinski and CNN.

One critical element of the Lanny Davis model, says Davis, is having a president who has a firm enough grasp of the legal and political stakes that he's willing to focus on his day job and let his lawyers do the talking for him. But even some of Trump's defenders admit that not only is the president unlikely to show such deference, he is never more than a bad news cycle away from firing Mueller.

"Bannon's a smart guy -- he knows the difference between success and political suicide," says Davis. "But could he even stop him?" When it came to Comey, the answer was no. As Mueller expands his team of investigators, the question now is how long Trump's advisers will be able to dissuade him from going after the special counsel. "One thing that's always dangerous is telling Donald Trump that he can't do something," says Roger Stone. "Because then he wants to do it."

If Trump were to fire Mueller , numerous Republicans say privately that they would break with the president. "It would be a repeat of the 'Saturday Night Massacre' when Nixon fired Archibald Cox," the Watergate special prosecutor, says Davis.

There's no question, though, who would lead the attack on Trump's critics if such a scenario were to unfold. "At the end of the day," says Sam Nunberg, "the question is, are we going to stand with Trump when he fires Mueller? Steve will do it."

Adapted from Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency , by Joshua Green (July 18; Penguin Press). Copyright © 2017 by Joshua Green.

*This article appears in the July 10, 2017, issue of New York Magazine.

[Jul 10, 2017] The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months. What It Means For The Russia Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... the Associated Press ..."
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | dailycaller.com
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.

A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.

"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now reports . "The rest were doing other work."

Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.

"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.

A few days later, the Associated Press echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.

The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.

The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.

"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies," CNN blared .

The New York Times took it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading" narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."

Journalists eagerly tweeted out these headlines .

But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political operatives and anonymous "officials."

Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from the top.

The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report incorrectly claiming there are 19 intelligence agencies).

She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.

"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing."

Trump took the bait.

"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated over and over in the press as evidence he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."

With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.

Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And the fact checks came rolling in. The New York Times , Politico , ABC News , Politifact and PBS all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number with authority in its reporting, saying in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."

The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.

"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.

Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now framed it as common knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"

The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking." The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."

All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes, the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.

The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.

That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down at the speed of common sense and Google.

Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.

Nevertheless, the claim persisted.

"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump in an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"

"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the contrary," the Daily Beast reported that same day .

NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget in a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.

"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning was clear."

Reuters, too, touted the number in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.

The declassified DNI report that followed in January provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)

A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.

"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."

And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting the record.

"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And we all know how that's right."

Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment, plus my office."

"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.

"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."

So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they, since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?

At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.

Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim in an interview with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.

"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence' that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."

A little while later the bogus claim showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then twice more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well in a June 11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim, which was rather strangely corrected four days later.

After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where does that number come from?" Acosta asked.

And all the time , the tweets from journos eager to harp on the Trump-Russia narrative kept coming .

The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim mostly false in a separate fact check.

So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.

We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters -- proved more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia investigation.

The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.

Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.

The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.

Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30." Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.

In a report casting the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe. The White House refuted the anecdote in no uncertain terms the following day.

Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer.

CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey would refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such thing. In fact he corroborated Trump's account .

Just weeks after retracting a story on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course, it was wrong . One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.

We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.

The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.

Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

[Jul 10, 2017] "Color Revolution" Comes Home Are Americans Also the Victims of "Regime Change" by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

Notable quotes:
"... The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era , but it has been in the post-World War II period that it has perfected regime change operations. ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca

The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era , but it has been in the post-World War II period that it has perfected regime change operations.

Have the people of the United States been the victims of regime change operations at home? Have the wealthiest and the security state created a government that serves them, rather than the people? To answer these questions, we begin by examining how regime change works and then look at whether those ingredients are being used domestically.

Color Revolutions and Regime Change Operations

Almost from the start, the CIA's role has been more than intelligence gathering. It has been a key player in putting in place governments friendly to the United States and conducting other operations, e.g. the CIA is currently involved in drone strikes.

One of the first regime change operations of the CIA was Operation Ajax conducted in Iran, and led by Kermit Roosevelt , the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was president when the US solidified its global empire ambitions. The CIA was founded in 1947 and the regime change coup in Iran was 1953. Greg Maybury writes in "Another Splendid Little Coup ": "Placing to one side an early dress rehearsal in Syria in 1949 , the Iran coup was the first post-War exercise in regime change upon the part of Anglo-American alliance " Just this month the US government released documents showing the CIA and State Department's planning and implementation of the coup against the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh . This release supplements one from 2013 that did not reveal the full role of the US in the coup.

The Iran coup was crude compared to more modern efforts but had the ingredients that have become common – civil society protests against the government, media reports supporting the protests, agents within the government supporting the coup and replacement of the government with a US-friendly regime. The Iran coup may have been the most costly mistake in US foreign policy because it undermined a secular democratic government in Iran that could have been the example for the region. Instead the US installed the brutal Shah of Iran, whose rule ended in the 1979 revolution, in which, as Maybury reports, the US was also implicated because it felt the Shah had overstayed his welcome.

The Iran coup was perceived as a great CIA success, so it was copied in other Middle Eastern countries as well as countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. Regime change is still a major tool of US foreign policy. There is a long-term ongoing coup campaign in Venezuela, with its most recent episode last week in which a helicopter attack on the Supreme Court was tied to the US DEA and CIA . The US has allied with oligarchs, supported violent protests and provided funds for the opposition, which has also worked to undermine the Venezuelan economy -- a tactic the US has used in other coups, e.g. the coup of Allende in Chile .

The coup in Ukraine , which the media falsely calls a 'democratic revolution,' was, as the head of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor says, " the most blatant coup in history ." The CIA and State Department played the lead roles.

Victoria Nuland , an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, bragged that the US spent $5 billion to build civil society opposition against a government that leaned toward Russia. The government funded civil society opposition through US AID, which is the open vehicle for what the CIA used to do covertly, along with the National Endowment for Democracy . This funding was used to build oppositional civil society groups and create destabilization. They focused on the issue of corruption , which exists in every government, and built it up to a centerpiece for regime change. The US allied with extremist right-wing groups in Ukraine.

The US picked the new leaders of Ukraine. This included Petro Poroshenko , whom U.S. officials refer to as "Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko" in a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 . The selected Prime Minister was Arseniy Yatsenyuk . Before the coup, Victoria Nuland told the US Ambassador to Ukraine that 'Yats' should be the prime minister . And, the Finance Minister was Natalia Jaresko , a long-time State Department official who moved to Ukraine after the US-inspired coup, the Orange Revolution, to become a conduit for US funding of civil society through her hedge fund. She was a US citizen whom Poroshenko made a Ukrainian on the day she was appointed Finance Minister. To top it off, fmr. Vice President Joe Biden 's son, Hunter Biden , and fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry 's longtime financial ally, Devon Archer , were put on the board of the largest private gas corporation in the Ukraine. Yet, the US media refuses to call this complete take over of the country by the United States a coup and instead describes Russia as the aggressor.

The US has perfected regime change operations from the 1950s up through today. The standard method of operation is finding an issue to cause dissent, building opposition in a well funded civil society 'movement', manipulating the media, putting in place US friendly leaders and blaming US opposition for the coup to hide US involvement. This approach is consistent no matter which party is in power in the US.

The Kleptocratic Oligarch Coup In The United States

Let's apply the lessons from around the world to the United States. There is no question the US is an oligarchy. We say no question because recent political studies have proven it in multiple ways .

One difference in the US is that money plays an outsized influence in US elections . The wealthy can buy the government they want through campaign donations and by anonymous spending but the tools of color revolutions are still needed to legitimize the government. Legitimacy is getting harder to buy. Many realize we live in a mirage democracy . The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs reported in 2016 the extent of the loss of legitimacy of US government:

"Nine in 10 Americans lack confidence in the country's political system, and among a normally polarized electorate, there are few partisan differences in the public's lack of faith in the political parties, the nominating process, and the branches of government."

Jimmy Carter has pointed to the "unlimited bribery" of government as turning the US into an oligarchy . The government needs to use the tools of regime change at home in order to create an veneer of legitimate government.

The Donald Trump presidency, which we regularly criticize , brings a lot of these tools to the forefront because Trump beat the system and defeated the elites of both parties. As a result, Democratic Party propaganda is being used to undermine Trump not only based on his policies but also through manufactured crises such as RussiaGate. The corporate media consistently hammers home RussiaGate , despite the lack of evidence to support it. Unlike the Watergate or Iran-Contra scandals, there is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to get elected. And, the security state – the FBI and the agencies that conduct regime change operations around the world – is working to undermine Trump in a still unfolding domestic coup .

Civil society also has a strong role. John Stauber writes that :

"The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones , is primarily a political public relations creation of America's richest corporate elite, the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and environmental consciousness, and don't bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests."

Civil society groups created or aligned with the Democratic Party are defining the new form of false-resistance as electing Democrats. The Democrats, as they have done throughout history as the oldest political party, know how to control movements and lead them into ineffectiveness to support the Democratic Party agenda. We described, in " Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History ," how this was done skillfully during the health reform process in 2009. This new resistance is just another tool to empower the elites, not resistance to the oligarchic-kleptocrats that control both parties. In fact, a major problem in progressive advocacy is the funding ties between large non-profits and corporate interests. The corruption of money is seen in organizations that advocate for corporate-friendly policies in education , health care , energy and climate , labor , and other issues.

Color Revolution Tools Used In The US

Now the tools the US uses for regime change around the world are being used at home to funnel activist energy and efforts into the Democratic party and electoral activities. In order to resist this new "resistance" we need to be aware of it and how it operates. We need to see through propaganda, such as RussiaGate, and attempts to manipulate the masses through scripted events that are portrayed as organic, such as the recent "sit in" by Rep. John Lewis and Sen. Cory Booker on the Capitol steps, or through highly emotional cultural content that portrays the plutocratic parties as parties of the people. We have to remember that the root issue is plutocracy and the US has two plutocratic parties, often referred to as "The Duopoly."

Nonprofit industrial complex

... ... ...

The original source of this article is PopularResistance.Org Copyright © Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers , PopularResistance.Org , 2017

[Jul 10, 2017] We need to, as a society, start throwing these neocon criminals their co-conspirators right where they belong in a jail cell post haste

Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Silverado , July 14, 2015 at 10:47 pm GMT

@Kiza

After reading, listening to and watching so much of the information about the shooting down of MH17 I put forward the most likely scenario and some important related points.

1) If the Ukrainians shot it down, then it would have been a deliberate and planned act; if the Separatists did it it would have been a totally stupid mistake. Shooting down a plane which even falls onto their territory was definitely not in their interest.
2) If MH17 was shot-down by the Ukrainians then nobody would believe that the West was not involved in this act, therefore the West has a strong incentive to defend its Ukrainians even if it knows that they have done it.
3) It is possible that the US neocons knew of the plan to shoot down a passenger plane, but it was unlikely that this was known within the wider US Administration
4) The Prime Minister of Australia one Tony Abbott, was screaming his head off against the Russians about 7 hours after the shoot-down; he reduced rhetoric later, but how did he know who did it so quickly?
5) It is not impossible but it is not easy to shoot down a passenger plane flying at almost 11,000 m and at a high speed from the ground. When the USS Vincennes downed the Iran Air Flight 655, this plane was still climbing up. Other examples of shootdowns were mostly by military jets, not by Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMs).
6) Therefore, most likely the MH17 was shot down by a military jet, because nobody saw a very visible plume from a BUK missile.
7) It is extremely unlikely that the US does not have satellite imagery, where is it?
8) Who directed a civilian jet over a small conflict area (50km x 80km)?
9) Why the black boxes were never analysed and sound of the last few seconds played in the media, as it usually happens?
10) What about news that the Ukrainian Government was given the right of veto over the investigative report's content? This would make this report totally compromised and worthless.

In conclusion - most information points that MH17 was shot down at the behest of the US neocons and executed by their Ukrainian proxies . The majority of the US Government has not been involved in this act, but all information has been suppressed and this is why the US intelligence professionals have been complaining. That reminds me of an old neocon joke I re-heard the other day that goes like

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain are all flying over New Orleans in a Blackhawk, surveying the progress that has been made in rebuilding the city and the levees. As they fly over the Ninth Ward, Cheney looks out the window, grins, and says, "You know, I could throw a thousand-dollar bill out the window right now and make one of those poor bastards very happy."

Bush says, "Well, I could throw ten hundred-dollar bills out the window right now and make TEN people very happy."

Not to be outdone, McCain chimes in, "Oh yeah? Well, I could throw a hundred $10 bills out the window and make a HUNDRED Americans very happy."

Hearing this, the copter pilot rolls his eyes and says, "Man, I could throw all three of you out the window and make 300 million Americans very happy."

We need to, as a society, start throwing these neocon criminals & their co-conspirators right where they belong – in a jail cell post haste

[Jul 09, 2017] Patching It Up With Putin by Patrick J. Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the election of 2016.

Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans elected him to office.

What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading from an indictment?

President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.

President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.

Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all?

Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea.

Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.

Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.

Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.

We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo.

Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us."

Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country?

Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the present moment."

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.

As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode of social misconduct: "Get over it!"

We have other fish to fry.

In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.

Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.

Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.

Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.

Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.

If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war.

Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

exiled off mainstreet > , Show Comment Next New Comment July 7, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.

Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.

JL, July 7, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.

These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much.

Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative.

Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent, that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents. Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd.

The Alarmist , July 7, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT

"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."

Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was done cannot be undone."

There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 7, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying: "One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."

As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump has sidelined just before French's Macron.

It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career. The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.

nickels, July 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'

Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.

WorkingClass , July 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT

I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?

Rurik, Website July 7, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all?

exactly!

... ... ...

If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?

the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.

If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU.

Anon, July 7, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?

Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is justified based on their beliefs?

Wally, July 7, 2017 at 10:51 pm GMT

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None.

MarkinLA, July 8, 2017 at 4:02 am GMT

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.

Et Tu Pat? Pat, you are never going to get a network gig again no matter how much sphincter you lick. You know this is bogus.

El Dato, July 8, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT

@MarkinLA NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people "

KenH, July 8, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT

I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.

Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.

I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's not good.

Priss Factor , Website July 8, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

@JL Buchanan has a kneejerk mentality on Russia as the enemy even as he argues for peace and reconciliation.

The formative and crucial period of his life was defined by the cold war.

Bill Jones, July 8, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT

Paddy seems to take it as given that Russia hacked Podesta, despite the utter lack of evidence.

the raven, July 8, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged, let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.

So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?

Don Bacon, July 8, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus

. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians.

Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. . .

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/no-the-russians-did-not-meddle-in-our-election-by-publius-tacitus.html

fuzzy, July 8, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

Hacked the election? How exactly? Go talk to Mr. Binney about it.

Avery, July 8, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

@MarkinLA { . no matter how much sphincter you lick.}

Brutal dude, brutal.

( ..well, I guess Pat asked for it: regurgitating unadulterated B____S____, to presumably appear 'balanced'.).

Bill Jones, July 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT

This is worth a read

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/09/remarks-president-trump-regulatory-relief

The True and Original David, July 9, 2017 at 8:35 am GMT

@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example: "Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."

USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the opponent's premises then quibbling.

"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."

"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."

"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."

An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny protests in response to blows.

The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.

Mr. Hack, July 9, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.

Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century, but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk' support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."

Pat,

You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government says at face value .always demand proof.

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."

Exactly

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."

Rightly so.

[Jul 09, 2017] Reality about Obama regime change in Libya is horrifying. Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly controlled and restricted

Notable quotes:
"... "Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans. ..."
"... We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?" ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.unz.com
annamaria says: July 9, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
The sensation: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/07/hiding-us-lies-about-libyan-invasion/

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/06/hillary-clinton-and-libya-sending.html

"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans.

We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"

Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly controlled and restricted."

[Jul 09, 2017] Washingtons Leak Mob: Current and Ex-Officials Damage National Security in Quest to Topple Trump by Kimberley A. Strassel

Notable quotes:
"... Today's Washington is overrun by two kinds of crimes. The first is the still-speculative kind, which the Washington press corps obsesses over "Trump -Russia collusion, obstruction of justice" despite no evidence of its existence. By all accounts, special counsel Robert Mueller's growing team of Democratic lawyers intends to devote itself to this fiction. ..."
"... Yet if Mr. Mueller were serious about bringing down a threat to the nation, or even carving himself a place in history, he'd be tackling the second kind of crime, the real kind. These are the crimes that occur constantly and actually harm national security, even if they're routinely ignored by a self-interested media. We are talking of course about the serial leaking of sensitive information, the daily profession of a new government elite akin to an organized crime network. ..."
"... Lucky for Mr. Mueller, he doesn't even need his army of legal investigators to get an immediate handle on this mafia. He can instead stroll down to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. That's the purview of Sen. Ron Johnson, who keeps dogged oversight of government among his many self-set tasks. ..."
"... It's a bloodless accounting of a national-security failure, perpetrated by dozens of government employees willfully breaking the law. ..."
"... The first 126 days of the Trump administration featured 125 stories that leaked harmful information. Just under one a day. The committee staff judged the stories against a 2009 Barack Obama executive order that laid out what counted as information likely to damage national security. And as it chose to not include borderline leaks or "palace intrigue" stories, that number is an understatement. ..."
"... For reference, the first 126 days of the Obama term featured 18 stories that met the criteria. Ten of those were actually leaks about George W. Bush's "torture memo," which Mr. Obama released. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | nation.foxnews.com
Originally published by Kimberley A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal

Today's Washington is overrun by two kinds of crimes. The first is the still-speculative kind, which the Washington press corps obsesses over "Trump -Russia collusion, obstruction of justice" despite no evidence of its existence. By all accounts, special counsel Robert Mueller's growing team of Democratic lawyers intends to devote itself to this fiction.

Yet if Mr. Mueller were serious about bringing down a threat to the nation, or even carving himself a place in history, he'd be tackling the second kind of crime, the real kind. These are the crimes that occur constantly and actually harm national security, even if they're routinely ignored by a self-interested media. We are talking of course about the serial leaking of sensitive information, the daily profession of a new government elite akin to an organized crime network.

Lucky for Mr. Mueller, he doesn't even need his army of legal investigators to get an immediate handle on this mafia. He can instead stroll down to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. That's the purview of Sen. Ron Johnson, who keeps dogged oversight of government among his many self-set tasks. That mission resulted this week in a shocking staff analysis of the recent deluge of secret-spilling, and the manner in which these unauthorized disclosures are harming national security. It's the first congressional scrutiny of the leaks and notable for its straight-up nature. This is no partisan document. It's a bloodless accounting of a national-security failure, perpetrated by dozens of government employees willfully breaking the law.

The first 126 days of the Trump administration featured 125 stories that leaked harmful information. Just under one a day. The committee staff judged the stories against a 2009 Barack Obama executive order that laid out what counted as information likely to damage national security. And as it chose to not include borderline leaks or "palace intrigue" stories, that number is an understatement.

For reference, the first 126 days of the Obama term featured 18 stories that met the criteria. Ten of those were actually leaks about George W. Bush's "torture memo," which Mr. Obama released.

Read the full story at The Wall Street Journal

[Jul 09, 2017] The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in mccarthyism-ville by Robert Parry

this is pure McCarthyism, not "propaganda ville". Clapper and Brennan are the leaders of Russiagate color revolution against Trump. And there is no countervailing force.
Notable quotes:
"... It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked." ..."
"... The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. ..."
"... On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. ..."
"... Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." ..."
"... When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme. ..."
"... Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. ..."
"... Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. ..."
"... But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. ..."
"... The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. ..."
"... "On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. ..."
"... As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. ..."
"... With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher – possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization – but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in "propaganda-ville," says Robert Parry.

MSM, Still Living in Propaganda-ville By Robert Parry

As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed Russia.

This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, "there's safety in numbers," is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq's WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as well.

Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred that Russia did "meddle" in last November's U.S. election.

For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed "Politifact" deemed the assertion "true." But it was never true.

It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he issued a statement last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began touting.

However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a 17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies.

But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn't even a formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper's statement. President Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election – and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper's office presented the opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI's office), not 17.

Lacking Hard Evidence

The report also contained no hard evidence of a Russian "hack" and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best. However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the "all-17-intelligence-agencies" refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The argument went: "How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as true?"

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked."

The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear.

On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment.

Brennan said the Jan. 6 report "followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn't a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies."

After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian "meddling" as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the "unanimous judgment" of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number.

This "unanimous judgment" formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17 agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be detected.

For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal correction.

A Belated Correction

Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected."

When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme.

So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate "scandal" had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did "meddle" in the election.

The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a "certainty" – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply move on as if nothing had changed.

That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing "the crime of the century." A reference, stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, "Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence." Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations.

Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council.

Relying on Outsiders

You might be wondering why something as important as this "crime of the century," which has pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest.

If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn't the FBI seize the DNC's computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation? And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is "some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country," one that doesn't inspire the NSA's confidence?

But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump.

Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various formulations that continue to embrace the "17-intelligence-agencies" canard, albeit in slightly different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and out of step.

For instance, James Holmes of Esquire was stunned on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still wasn't entirely sure about Russia's guilt. "In public, he's still casting doubt on the intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months after the fact," Holmes sputtered before describing Trump's comment as a "rant." So, if you thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the "17-intelligence-agencies" falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have been sadly mistaken.

But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia.

Hating Putin

This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2000 when he began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed "shock therapy," which had sold off Russia's assets to well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored "oligarchs," even as the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty.

But the U.S. mainstream media's contempt for Putin reached new heights after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain.

Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to "glue" or "midwife this thing."

Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of "aggression" when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime.

When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian "invasion." But it was the most peculiar "invasion," since there were no images of tanks crashing across borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such "invasion" had occurred.

However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of disseminating Russian "propaganda" – or being a "Moscow stooge" or acting as a "useful fool." There was no tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were saying.

Trump Meets Putin

So, as Trump prepares for his first meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the Ukraine "invasion" with its groupthinks about Russia "hacking" the election.

In a July 3 editorial , The Washington Post declared, "Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia's intervention and now faces a special counsel's investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt.

"On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths.

But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned.

In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future revelations.

As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration.

With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville."

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Jul 08, 2017] Russiagate The Stink Without a Secret by Craig Murray

Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
Jul 08, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged.

I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.

Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether, but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?

The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).

The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts. They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for the purpose of this argument.

The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.

That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.

But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.

As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.

The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SqIY8KvuoJo

The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.

Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking" meme going. On 24 May the Guardian reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that

"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession of, or examined by, the FBI."

It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.

There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime", while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.

So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?

Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.

Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited.

Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.

Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do they have business links with Russian finance?

Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.

Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject may damage him.

The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there.

Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from his website .

Read more by Craig Murray

[Jul 08, 2017] Trump says he had a tremendous meeting with Putin

AP clearly pursue a neocon line of DNC hacks and Russian meddling in the US elections.
talkingpointsmemo.com
by Associated Press

The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.

"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with Lavrov.

Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."

U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts said represents a top-level threat.

Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that was reached by Russia and the United States.

While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.

Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan - another party to the deal.

Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.

"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."

[Jul 08, 2017] Trump says he had a tremendous meeting with Putin

AP clearly pursue a neocon line of DNC hacks and Russian meddling in the US elections.
get=
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.

"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with Lavrov.

Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."

U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts said represents a top-level threat.

Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that was reached by Russia and the United States.

While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.

Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan - another party to the deal.

Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.

"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."

[Jul 08, 2017] Susan Rice role in Russiagate

Jul 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com

SUSAN RICE GOING TO JAIL! SEE REASONS WHY -

> > > > > > > > > > >

[Jul 07, 2017] Tillerson Sanctions on Russia Will Remain Until Crimea Is Returned

"Until Crimea is returned" is a sign of neocon foreign policy
Jul 07, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Assured Ukraine Sanctions Against Russia Won't Change

Jason Ditz Posted on April 24, 2017 Categories News Tags Crimea , Russia , Tillerson , Ukraine Hopes that the US sanctions against Russia would be quickly rolled back when President Trump was elected in November didn't pan out, and the latest comments from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggest that the administration has no intention of removing the sanctions at all.

Speaking with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko over the weekend, Tillerson reported told him that the US sanctions on Russia will remain wholly in place " until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. " Needless to say, Russia isn't going to do that.

Crimea was an autonomous oblast within Ukraine until 2014, when they held a referendum and seceded. After that secession, they sought and gained accession into the Russian Federation, which the US doesn't recognize. US officials have repeatedly presented this as Russia "invading Crimea" or "taking Crimea by force," though the peninsula's ethnic Russian majority was able to effectively secede outright without anything nearly so dramatic happening.

Nobody seriously expects Russia to "give back" Crimea, even if there was a mechanism by which they could conceivably do so, which there isn't. Conditioning sanctions relief on that is tantamount to announcing the sanctions as a permanent feature of US policy, a stance which will likely suit the many Russia hawks in Congress and across Western Europe quite well.

[Jul 07, 2017] Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vyrEujl75tk

Published on 6 Jul 2017

Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

et Al , July 7, 2017 at 6:03 am

Words are much cheaper than actions

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

Dr Nicolai Petro is very brave to express such opinions considering where he is – Odessa. Anyone who deviates from the Banderite-Maidan propaganda line in Ukraine is censored and ostracised at best, at worst – murdered.

Bob , July 7, 2017 at 11:32 am

Odessa has a noticeable pro-Russian element as is true in some other parts of Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. Granted, folks with such views need to be careful.

[Jul 07, 2017] What's really behind all the fake anti-Russia hysteria

Notable quotes:
"... However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State ..."
"... Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017, their New World Order ..."
"... As usual, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme Russophobia. ..."
"... "General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of the so-called Gehlen Organization." ..."
"... "excuse of the millennium" ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | stateofthenation2012.com
March 17, 2017

Why so much naked propaganda and fake news directed against Russia especially since Trump's election?

Executive Summary:

The Deep State now fears a "partnership for peace" between the United States and Russia more than anything else. It used to fear the natural alliance between Russia and Germany, since the Anglo-American domination of the world would be genuinely threatened by such a powerful geopolitical relationship. The two World Wars were engineered to pit Russia against Germany in order to preclude such a bloc from forming. The same Neocon cabal has been very busy setting up Europe for yet a third world war by manipulating Merkel's government against Putin's Kremlin. The immigrant crisis that began with the wars in the Middle East and North Africa was literally manufactured to destabilize Europe as a precursor to World War III.

However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State now has a much bigger 'problem'-the very real prospect of a United States-Russian Federation entente. For this reason, the CIA and MSM (mainstream media) have been beating the war drums like never before. Russia has, overnight, become the whipping boy for everything wrong with the Democratic Party as well as the scapegoat for every major intel security lapse in the USA. The U.S. Intelligence Community will continue to fabricate patently false stories about the Trump Administration with respect to Russia as pre-emptive strikes to make any meaningful dialogue politically precarious. At the request of the CIA, the MSM will also continue to publish fake news and naked propaganda about the same in order to greatly inflame anti-Russian sentiment.

Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017, their New World Order is under serious assault around the globe and war has become an apparent necessity. Populist movements and nationalist revolutions are springing up like mushrooms across the planet. After the controlled demolition of the global economic and financial system, the cabal considers war - World War III - as their only real option (just as they created the Great Depression to set the stage for World War II). Inciting extreme Russophobia has always been their means to starting the real big wars. WW3 will be no different, unless Trump and Putin meet in broad daylight and declare Deep State the archenemy of We the People everywhere. That's the short story, now read on for the extended back story.
________________________________________________________

The entire anti-Russian campaign is being quite deliberately orchestrated at the highest echelons of Deep State and the U.S. Intelligence Community.[1]

As usual, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme Russophobia.

"General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of the so-called Gehlen Organization." (Source: www.cia.gov )

... ... ...

The central organizing principle , which is always followed religiously by the secret NWO ruling cabal, concerns the strict maintenance of the perpetual war economy .

Toward that end, world peace can never be achieved. Rather, only the false notion that peace may be attained - at some magical moment in the future - is ever projected.

Consequently, the imaginary split between East and West is always exploited to the max by the ruling cabal. The East is just far and foreign enough relative to the West that it can always be successfully set up as the [fictitious] bogeyman.

... ... ... Clinton and Podesta

As always, there are several levels of intrigue going on simultaneously whenever Deep State undertakes such an all-consuming global operation as the "Russian hack" psyop. The sheer domination of the daily news cycle by "Russia this; Russia that" is always a reflection of what TPTB really do fear the most. However, there is also a purely political point being scored with this completely contrived Russophobia black op.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman was John Podesta. Both Clinton and Podesta have gone down in U.S. presidential election history as the two of the biggest losers of all time. Bear in mind that this was Clinton's second humiliating loss after being blindsided by Barack Obama in 2008. Not only did these two very bad losers need a very good excuse for all the livid donors, they were also desperate for a story that would pacify their ultra-sensitive and still-crying liberal base.

There are actually multiple reasons why these two characters required the "excuse of the millennium" as to why they just got trounced by Trump. The very best they could come up with was the "Russian election hack". This false accusation led to the baseless conclusion that the election was hacked by the Russians and, therefore, the Democrats were powerless in defeat, even though no such thing happened.

This gave Podesta, especially, something very BIG to talk about at a time when his direct involvement with Pizzagate was being virally exposed in the worldwide Alt Media, and then to a lesser extent by the MSM. Once Pizzagate was exposed as Podesta's Achilles' heel, he became like a wounded animal thrashing about in sheer desperation. This is when the anti-Russian campaign was really racheted up because the very future of the Democratic Party was hanging in the balance as was his political fate.

PIZZAGATE : The Scandal That Will Take Down the Clintons, the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration

Clinton also needed to blame anyone but herself, being the most inferior and corrupt, caustic and unlikeable, offensive and dangerous, mean-spirited and vengeful presidential candidate in U.S history. How she ever even got the nomination can only be explained by the staunch support she received from the warmongering Neocons. They prepared her over the course of her entire career to be the POTUS who would wage war on Russia, even if it meant going nuclear on them.

Key Point: HRC was actually disqualified from holding any public office based on her own admissions of fact. ( U.S. CODE: Hillary R. Clinton is disqualified from holding any public office in the United States Government )

Most expediently, the concocted "Russian hacking" narrative by Podesta perfectly plays into the Neocon machination to provoke Russia into a regional war (e.g. Ukraine) on the way to triggering a full-scale WW3. The war propaganda also feeds into their desire for massive war profiteering in the form of gun running, human trafficking, drug smuggling, artifact black marketing, oil theft and other illicit enterprises which are easily covered up in the fog of war.

Lastly, this "Russian hacking" approach, the Neocons hope, will afford them the opportunity to again take back the Motherland from the Russian people. The Neocon cabal longs for the day when they can complete their Russia exploitation project via their oligarch agents of predatory capitalism and the draconian application of neoliberal economics. What follows is the back story to this multi-decade conspiratorial movement that has brought so much death and destruction to Russia for a century, as well as to the world-at-large. STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For World Domination

The bottom line here is that neither Clinton nor Podesta would take any blame whatsoever for their epic failure. Clinton herself had issued many anti-Russian screeds during the debates in order to smear Trump so it was a very convenient excuse when they were soundly defeated at the polls. It's a well known fact that criminally insane psychopaths will never assume responsibility for their misconduct and/or unlawful actions. When such bad actors enter politics, their incorrigible criminal behavior mixes with those of similar ilk, and then all hell can break loose as it is across America today. This link explains the surreptitious process of ponerization in much greater detail: PONERIZATION: How the American Republic was taken over by political cliques of criminally insane psychopaths

Deep State

Because of so many unanticipated eventualities, the agents of Deep State are working triple time to sow seed of chaos and confusion everywhere and anywhere. It's as though Pandora's box has been opened in every nation on Earth wherein each is now plagued with so much political pandemonium and social mayhem, economic instability and financial insecurity.

Economic Sabotage & Financial Terrorism: The Primary Weapons Deep State Will Use Against The Trump Administration

In light of this rapidly devolving predicament, it's more essential than ever for President Trump and President Putin to meet face-to-face in order to meet this extraordinary global challenge. The world is truly at a crossroad: it can follow the Neocons to more war or the righteous leaders to an enduring peace.

The current generation has never witnessed two presidents of the 2 superpowers willing to sit down with each other in a mutually respectful manner. This alone bodes well for humanity; now, if only they can be compelled by their good conscience to speak to each other as members of the universal brotherhood.

Remember, Deep State knows that it will be like the Titanic colliding with the iceberg should Trump and Putin cooperate to expose the real "Beast" that has terrorized the planet for so long. And Deep State will be the Titanic. Should enough people wake up to this unfolding reality, everything can change in a day and a night. There is nothing so strong and formidable as people power in this age of populist movements and authentic revolutions. Therefore, the real mission here is to enlighten as many people as possible before things really get so out of control that we move past the point of no return.

Trump cannot allow a fake Russian conspiracy to keep him from his stated mission. He said many times on the campaign trail that there was no reason not to make peace with Russia. And Trump asked why anyone would ever want war with the nuclear superpower. Putin is his own man and quite willing to meet with Trump. The vast majority of his people only want peace and good will between the two nations.

... ... ...

[Jul 04, 2017] Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell by mike

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | non-intervention.com
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on July 1, 2017 by mike

I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented holies.

President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.

Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress. Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures, whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.

I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.

Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.

Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."

When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika?

But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika, who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.

Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.

These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks, and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness - but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.

As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.

[Jul 04, 2017] McGovern vs. Nixon has so many similarities to the 2016 Election

One similarity is the role of intelligence agencies in removal Nixon from the office...
Notable quotes:
"... The winner in 72 was impeached ..and, the winner in 2016 may well be impeached . ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

John S , July 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL '72 by Hunter S. Thompson is a great, easy, blast from the past .for those of you who enjoy SHATTERED type books, I think you will enjoy this ..

McGovern vs. Nixon has so many similarities to the 2016 Election and pretty much no one under 70 will remember much of the '72 election, unless they were political junkies from "their get-go" .

Some 1972/2016 parallels and wierdities:

* The DNC was burgled by the GOP (Watergate) and in '16 hacked by the Russians (??)
* The GOP had one candidate (Nixon) while the Dems had a bunch including Muskie, Hube, Wallace and McGovern was the surprise winner
* Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money
* Wallace and Trump played to the same crowd
* In October 1972 only 3% of the population thought that Watergate was a "serious problem"

* The McGovern ground game in Wisconsin was a marvel of its time (see Gene Pokorney) ..so, theoretically was Hillary's

* Although the USA was/is involved in WAR, once the main campaigning began, the WAR was not a major issue in either election

* Eagleton was a big problem for McGovern and Bill was a big problem for Hillary

* The FBI was accused of releasing Eagleton's medical records and Comey, was accused of stuff, too

* The winner in 72 was impeached ..and, the winner in 2016 may well be impeached .

At any rate, this book is an easy and prescient Summer Beach Read ..and, those who like this genre, may also "Like" Tim Crouse's THE BOYS ON THE BUS ..

50 years ago, we the reading public has to wait 1-2 years for the "Inside Scoop" books to be published .today, thanks to Lambert and so many others, we can "get the haps" pretty much simultaneously with the candidates and their staffs .

Happy 4th to Lambert and thanks for all you do four us .

shinola , July 3, 2017 at 4:41 pm

I agree with you on "Fear & Loathing " – HST is one of my all time favorite authors. I do have one minor quibble about the "under 70" remark.

IIRC, '72 was the 1st prez election in which 18, 19 & 20 year olds were allowed to vote so I would trim a few years off of that figure.

charles leseau , July 3, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money

I knew Jeb would go nowhere once the media started ignoring him 24/7 and trotted out 12 Trump stories a day. Absolutely predicted Trump's nomination close to a year before he was actually nominated.

different clue , July 3, 2017 at 9:12 pm

JohnS,

I am only 60, but here is evidence that I remember a little from that time. There was a political saying . . . "Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw. Nixon/ Agnew in '72!"

John S , July 3, 2017 at 9:41 pm

.shinola, if one posts here, chances are pretty good that one will know a bit about the '72 election .my current peer group of friends (68-74) had little or no memory of the '72 election as they were not "in" to politics or voting then .I wonder how many MSM or TV talkingheads are well versed in this election?

.different clue, great comment .I wonder if our current President will bring the Game of Bridge back into fashion (it was still BIG in '72) . playing Bridge in the Chevy Chase Country Club Card Room would give people a continuous opportunity to shout out their bid of :

"4 NO Trump!!!!"

even when they held 13 Spades, etc ..or, held nary an Ace or Face Card ..

Happy 4th to all .

Left in Wisconsin , July 4, 2017 at 12:38 pm

My "hippie" 7th grade social studies teacher took us on a field trip from the burbs to downtown Albany to see McGovern at a campaign rally. My first political experience.

[Jul 04, 2017] Foisting Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia by Gareth Porter

Notable quotes:
"... Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians. ..."
"... The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet. ..."
"... Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered. ..."
"... "Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added] ..."
"... Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently." ..."
"... The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly. ..."
"... The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources. ..."
"... But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence. ..."
"... But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases. ..."
"... Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Cyber-criminal efforts to hack into U.S. government databases are epidemic, but this ugly reality is now being exploited to foist blame on Russia and fuel the New Cold War hysteria

Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians.

On June 21, Samuel Liles, acting director of the Intelligence and Analysis Office's Cyber Division at the Department of Homeland Security, and Jeanette Manfra, acting deputy under secretary for cyber-security and communications, provided the main story line for the day in testimony before the Senate committee - that efforts to hack into election databases had been found in 21 states.

Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap also endorsed the narrative of Russian government responsibility for the intrusions on voter registration databases.

But none of those who testified offered any evidence to support this suspicion nor were they pushed to do so. And beneath the seemingly unanimous embrace of that narrative lies a very different story.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.

So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet.

Both Ozment and state officials responsible for the state databases revealed that those databases have been the object of attempted intrusions for years. The FBI provided information to at least one state official indicating that the culprits in the hacking of the state's voter registration database were cyber-criminals.

Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered.

The Actions of Cybercriminals

That was an obvious clue to the motive behind the hack. Assistant DHS Secretary Ozment testified before the House Subcommittee on Information Technology on Sept. 28 ( at 01:02.30 of the video ) that the apparent interest of the hackers in copying the data suggested that the hacking was "possibly for the purpose of selling personal information."

Ozment 's testimony provides the only credible motive for the large number of states found to have experienced what the intelligence community has called "scanning and probing" of computers to gain access to their electoral databases: the personal information involved – even e-mail addresses – is commercially valuable to the cybercriminal underworld.

That same testimony also explains why so many more states reported evidence of attempts to hack their electoral databases last summer and fall. After hackers had gone after the Illinois and Arizona databases, Ozment said, DHS had provided assistance to many states in detecting attempts to hack their voter registration and other databases.

"Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added]

State election officials have confirmed Ozment's observation. Ken Menzel, the general counsel for the Illinois Secretary of State, told this writer, "What's new about what happened last year is not that someone tried to get into our system but that they finally succeeded in getting in." Menzel said hackers "have been trying constantly to get into it since 2006."

And it's not just state voter registration databases that cybercriminals are after, according to Menzel. "Every governmental data base – driver's licenses, health care, you name it – has people trying to get into it," he said.

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan told Mother Jones that her I.T. specialists had detected 193,000 distinct attempts to get into the state's website in September 2016 alone and 11,000 appeared to be trying to "do harm."

Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently."

James Comey's Role

The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly.

Comey told the committee that FBI Counterintelligence was working to "understand just what mischief Russia is up to with regard to our elections." Then he referred to "a variety of scanning activities" and "attempted intrusions" into election-related computers "beyond what we knew about in July and August," encouraging the inference that it had been done by Russian agents.

The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources.

Similarly, NBC News headline announced, "Russians Hacked Two US Voter Databases, Officials Say." But those who actually read the story closely learned that in fact none of the unnamed sources it cited were actually attributing the hacking to the Russians.

It didn't take long for Democrats to turn the Comey teaser - and these anonymously sourced stories with misleading headlines about Russian database hacking - into an established fact. A few days later, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff declared that there was "no doubt" Russia was behind the hacks on state electoral databases.

On Oct. 7, DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement that they were "not in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian government." But only a few weeks later, DHS participated with FBI in issuing a "Joint Analysis Report" on "Russian malicious cyber activity" that did not refer directly to scanning and spearphishing aimed of state electoral databases but attributed all hacks related to the election to "actors likely associated with RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]."

Suspect Claims

But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence.

But as I reported last January, the staff of Dragos Security, whose CEO Rob Lee, had been the architect of a US government system for defense against cyber attack, pointed out that the vast majority of those indicators would certainly have produced "false positives."

Then, on Jan. 6 came the "intelligence community assessment" – produced by selected analysts from CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and devoted almost entirely to the hacking of e-mail of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. But it included a statement that "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple state or local election boards." Still, no evidence was evinced on this alleged link between the hackers and Russian intelligence.

Over the following months, the narrative of hacked voter registration databases receded into the background as the drumbeat of media accounts about contacts between figures associated with the Trump campaign and Russians built to a crescendo, albeit without any actual evidence of collusion regarding the e-mail disclosures.

But a June 5 story brought the voter-data story back into the headlines. The story, published by The Intercept, accepted at face value an NSA report dated May 5, 2017 , that asserted Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, had carried out a spear-phishing attack on a US company providing election-related software and had sent e-mails with a malware-carrying word document to 122 addresses believed to be local government organizations.

But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases.

A Checkered History

So, the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community. Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was ever suggested.

Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois.

When FBI Counterintelligence chief Priestap was asked at the June 21 hearing how Moscow might use such personal data, his tortured effort at an explanation clearly indicated that he was totally unprepared to answer the question.

"They took the data to understand what it consisted of," said Priestap, "so they can affect better understanding and plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future election by knowing what is there and studying it."

In contrast to that befuddled non-explanation, there is highly credible evidence that the FBI was well aware that the actual hackers in the cases of both Illinois and Arizona were motivated by the hope of personal gain.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] . Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

Read more by Gareth Porter Why Afghanistan? Fighting a War for the War System Itself – June 13th, 2017 The Kissinger Backchannel to Moscow – June 4th, 2017 Will Trump Agree to the Pentagon's Permanent War in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? – May 14th, 2017 US 'Deep State' Sold Out Counter-Terrorism To Keep Itself in Business – April 23rd, 2017 New Revelations Belie Trump Claims on Syria Chemical Attack – April 14th, 2017

View all posts by Gareth Porter

[Jul 01, 2017] Gaius Publius An Investigation in Search of a Crime by Gaius Publius

Notable quotes:
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly, Trump could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets and says Trump has been out of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_hayes_drussiafakenews_170627

Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)

"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey , Book 11 PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this?
TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice.
It is Cassandra. -Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida , Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week." -Yours truly

So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform to what's presently painted as true.

Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the highly suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have another purpose .

Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined not to be believed . To what do I refer? Read on.

How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"

Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia) until very after the fact.

See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."

Jonathan Marshall, writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):

The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying

The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .

In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful foreign pressure groups have enough clout to downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence peddling by other nations .

The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act, failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines. Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:

Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters as well as by the law's many loopholes - including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect records of those not registered under the Act."

A 2016 audit by the inspector general of the Department of Justice determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .

The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.

Here's Russia-savvy Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:

When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story is still hidden from view .

Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.

But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.

[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.

Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?

Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.

Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.

But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.

Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than "somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.

My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.

John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia

Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person) firm still retained their business?

And all this while McCain himself was trying to gin up a war between Georgia and Russia that he would benefit from politically :

In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.

It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.

If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being paid by Georgia...

McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified to deal with Russia.

Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others aren't so sure :

Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations. Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .

If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register? The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.

The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems. Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.

An Investigation in Search of a Crime

Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole, which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?

Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation (how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.

Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator, makes the same point :

In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.

In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding." And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the U.S. Constitution.

There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.

By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence – that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)

The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russians in the hacking.

Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible obstruction of justice.

I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation, another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something more incriminating? He's still looking too.

Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)

What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?

Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.

Here's Parry on that (same link):

In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser, acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .

Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.

But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.

Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.

Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.

Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.

"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"

I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation, for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.

I think this story starts well before Trump took office , a rabbit hole I don't want to jump into yet, but one with John Brennan 's and James Clapper 's fingerprints - Obama's CIA director, Obama's DNI - all over it. Models of honesty all.

What's down that hole? Who knows.

What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still hidden from view."

I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime

TomDority , June 30, 2017 at 6:50 am

I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.

The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined.

Ed , June 30, 2017 at 9:04 am

While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Oh, what a load of bullcrap!

Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect to the "right-wing echo chamber".

And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:12 pm

I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a poor place to try such things.

I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.

I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.

Thor's Hammer , June 30, 2017 at 9:35 am

That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.

If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:

  • Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background, financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
  • Obama was aware of the arrangement
  • Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by definition theft.
  • Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is by definition obstruction of justice.
  • In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal definition of treason.
  • Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Disturbed Voter , June 30, 2017 at 7:09 am

Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet.

RenoDino , June 30, 2017 at 8:16 am

"None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of."

I guess this means, he needs to go, but not this way. This way is anti-democratic. But isn't that the point?

Carolinian , June 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

Did Obama "deserve getting rid of"? Oh heck yes. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Next chance: 2020.

Crazy Horse , June 30, 2017 at 12:57 pm

Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software, voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the traditional method is to have them shot.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:15 pm

It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected all over again. I'll vote for that.

Alice X , June 30, 2017 at 8:17 am

As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?

Vatch , June 30, 2017 at 9:50 am

You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote about 2008.

Skip in DC , June 30, 2017 at 8:39 am

Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.

I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow, etc

When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm

The right-on set ask "What about justice?"

Hell, let's see some evidence before we proceed to the sentence and verdict.

TheCatSaid , June 30, 2017 at 2:51 pm

And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens to be speaking.

And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history in many or most places.

DJG , June 30, 2017 at 9:18 am

Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism.

Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques if a Democrat wins the next election.

One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that

Crazy Horse , June 30, 2017 at 9:49 am

Perhaps we should look at the fairest electoral system in the world as a model. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8935

I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.

Stephen Douglas , June 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of.

No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!

You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.

You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Vatch , June 30, 2017 at 11:13 am

Here's another paragraph from the article:

Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)

This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.

In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary:

Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch

There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 11:10 am

None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.

Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence, espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.

*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.

lyman alpha blob , June 30, 2017 at 11:44 am

If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime.

Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).

shinola , June 30, 2017 at 2:12 pm

Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:45 am

> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests!

This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 30, 2017 at 2:15 pm

"but we've been hearing new evidence on a daily and weekly basis. Mueller isn't going to show his hand until the investigation has concluded,"

Ah we've been hearing new evidence, but Mueller is simultaneously keeping it secret wait did you mean we've heard new innuendos?

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Mostly it's been gumshoe reporters getting interviews. No need for inside sources for this story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/republican-claimed-flynn-tie-clinton-emails-article-1.3289348

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:51 am

This is the story where the main source is dead?

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am

> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed by division

How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really, there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:55 am

> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose

So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities. If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:34 pm

OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.

Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 2:26 pm

We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture, that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung, such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious of here.

These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence. That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.

Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance, and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges or brought or a crime is determined.

ian , June 30, 2017 at 4:39 pm

For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:34 am

> name the leakers who have committed perjury, torture, and entrapment.

We can't. They're anonymous.

> Is everyone in the intelligence community a perjurer, a torturer, or engaged in entrapment?

No, just the leadership. Clapper (perjury), Mueller (entrapment), Brennan (torture). Those come to mind immediately; there are doubtless others.

WeakenedSquire , June 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:21 pm

If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this whole "Putin diddit" deal.

They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:35 am

Philip Giraldi at The American Conservative also does good work.

different clue , July 1, 2017 at 3:10 am

Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name "Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:59 am

> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have.

OK, what is it?

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:19 pm

An investigation seeking to find evidence that a pre-selected target has commited a crime is I believe called a "witch hunt".

Byron the Light Bulb , June 30, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed, then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.

Yves Smith Post author , June 30, 2017 at 4:27 pm

As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.

Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 6:43 pm

You mean this Alan Dershowitz? http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/alan-dershowitz-thinks-black-lives-matter-is-anti-semitic-sticks-up-for-steve-bannon/

witters , June 30, 2017 at 8:47 pm

Yes. And?

Katje Borgesius , July 1, 2017 at 12:38 am

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406 ] and his D&O doc production.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

Yves Smith Post author , July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am

Help me. This is the best you can do?

I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).

Oh, and the former employees lost that suit.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:36 am

Or a fishing expedition.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 2:28 pm

For "super secret" investigations, the investigators sure leak like sieves. I wonder why.

Lambert Strether , June 30, 2017 at 5:02 pm

On the latest one, " GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead. Do better!

[Jul 01, 2017] Potential conspirators of Russiagate are grilled by Try Gowdy

[Jul 01, 2017] Ukraine A New Plan by Hall Gardner

Some parts of US political elite is now really afraid of Russian China alliance forged by Clinton, Bush Ii and Obama adventurism. It might be too late.
Notable quotes:
"... In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 . ..."
"... In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27 ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | americanaffairsjournal.org

The fighting in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine has moreover proved very costly for all sides, and rebuilding the region will prove very difficult. The specter of more intense fighting in the years ahead has been raised in the aftermath of Kiev's "creeping offensive" into the Donbass region since mid-December 2016. Kiev's military move was ostensibly intended to check supplies going to the Russian-backed autonomists (who in turn have begun to expropriate Ukrainian businesses in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions), but has nonetheless stepped deeper into the gray zone between the two sides. 6

A collapsed Donbass region that is potentially separated from a partitioned Ukraine could soon become a much larger and unstable version of Russian-backed Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia combined. Such political and economic instability will continue to pollute the whole area with black marketeering, weapons smuggling, and other forms of criminality. A failed "state" in eastern Ukraine would not only prove very troublesome for an essentially bankrupt Kiev and the rest of the region, but for Moscow as well-as the latter, for example, will need to deal with refugees fleeing to Russia. Some 1.5 million people have already fled the country, with the vast majority (1.2 million) going to the Russian Federation-which has not necessarily accepted them with open arms. Roughly 150,000 have gone to Belarus.

7 The cost of reconstruction and development in the aftermath of the conflict will be considerable. So it should be in the common interest to bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible.

The Question of Western Europe

A general settlement between the United States, European countries, Ukraine, and Russia is crucial to prevent the further destabilization of eastern Europe that could, in turn, further antagonize western Europe. Such a destabilization would deepen the divisions between pro-NATO and pro-EU sociopolitical movements and anti-NATO and anti-EU movements on both the right and the left. In general, both left-wing and right-wing political parties in states closest to Russia (Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic states) tend to take a strong anti-Russian position, no matter whether they are for or against NATO or EU membership. But left-wing and right-wing parties in both France and Germany-the two countries that now form the core of the European Union after the UK's exit from the EU (Brexit)-tend to oppose both EU and NATO membership.

During the ongoing process of Brexit, which could take several years to complete, it is not at all clear where the European Union is heading. European financial instability means that a number of states could, in the not too distant future, opt to drop out of the European Union and even out of NATO. Here, for example, sanctions placed on Russia in the agricultural sector (coupled with a Russian ban on European imports) have ironically been hurting the Europeans much more than the Americans. The impact of EU and Russian sanctions, along with general impact of regional deindustrialization and delocalization, has been pressing agricultural producers and workers, as well as small business owners, to turn toward anti-EU anti-NATO parties on both the right and the left, particularly in France. 9

In Search of a U.S.-Russia Policy

In apparent contrast to Trump's campaign promises to forge a general rapprochement with Moscow, the United States and NATO are now backing Kiev's claims to eastern Ukraine and to the Crimea-while still keeping the door open to Kiev's membership in NATO. This policy has reversed Trump's stance during his presidential campaign, when he warned in August 2016 that U.S. efforts to regain Crimea on behalf of Ukraine against Russia could result in World War III.

On the one hand, in arguing against Trump's proclaimed efforts to make amends with Moscow, Senator John McCain and others have feared that U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, could use his connections with Putin for the benefit of ExxonMobil. He might, they suggest, try to put an end to sanctions that had been placed by Washington on the Russian energy sector since July 2014. Eliminating sanctions would then safeguard ExxonMobil's considerable joint investment deals and potential profitability given the size of Russian reserves in the Arctic Kara Sea, western Siberia, Sakhalin island, and in the Black Sea that had been reached with Rosneft, the Russian government energy company, in 2012–13.11 The concern of those like McCain who want to sustain maximum political-economic pressure on Moscow, is that "sectoral sanctions" impacting major energy companies and banks are due to expire in December 2017-unless extended by Congress.12

On the other hand, Trump's "America First" policies are actually ideologically opposed to ExxonMobil's investments in Moscow. Trump's "economic nationalists" hope to return U.S. multinational corporate investments abroad back to the United States itself-while seeking to export U.S. shale oil and gas to Europe, for example. In effect, U.S. shale oil exporters hope to supply Poland, Ukraine, and other European countries so that these countries will be less dependent on Russian energy; Russia would have to lower prices to compete. Kiev, for example, is still dependent upon Moscow for about half of its natural gas needs.13 As opposed to the argument that the United States needs to sustain positive political and economic "linkage" with Moscow (as Henry Kissinger would argue), the United States could soon fully antagonize Moscow by becoming a direct rival for Russia's energy export markets-in a sector in which Moscow derives significant national revenues.14

The major dilemma lies in the fact that U.S. diplomacy under President Barack Obama did not go far enough to "reset" the general crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. Prior to Obama's first term, neither the United States nor the EU picked up and developed two significant proposals that might have prevented the escalation of tensions since 2014. The first proposal was Russian president Dmitri Medvedev's June 2008 call in Berlin for a new European security pact and the second was Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's call in Moscow for a new Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact in the aftermath of the August 2008 Georgia-Russia War. President Obama did try to reach out to Moscow once he came to power in January 2009, yet the fact that U.S.-Russia discussions did not address the issue of the uncoordinated NATO and EU "double enlargement" into the Russian-defined "near abroad" could only doom reset talks to failure.

Had the United States and EU reached out to address the issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus raised by both Russia and NATO-member Turkey, this crisis might not have escalated. Instead, the general attitude since the end of the Cold War was that NATO and the EU could somehow manage these regions without the involvement of Russia-in the false assumption that Russia would do nothing to defend its interests in its "near abroad." In effect, the general U.S. and EU attitude has been that there was no need to create a new, jointly managed, regional peace and development community under OSCE auspices that would incorporate the interests of Russia, Turkey, and other regional states.1

...the 2014 Minsk II accords between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia (in which the United States is not a participant) were not designed to address the two elephants in the room: the questions concerning NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, plus Ukrainian demands for the return of Crimea from Russia. The focus of the Minsk discussions has been on the conflict in eastern Ukraine only-in which a total ceasefire, Ukrainian "decentralization," and direct negotiations between Kiev and the Donbass "autonomists" have been considered essential to success. Yet Kiev's promises of "decentralization" have not been constitutionally implemented and the March 2017 decision of the Ukrainian Poroshenko government to support the blockade on the Donbass region basically puts a dagger into the heart of the Minsk II accords.16 It now appears politically impossible for the government in Kiev to recognize the autonomist factions in the Donbass region, while Moscow has continued to supply autonomists with weaponry.

Given the gravity of the situation, the Minsk discussions over eastern Ukraine will soon need to be widened to include at least the United States and Turkey. This step would broaden the negotiations to include issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus regions, plus the Crimea. NATO-member Turkey-despite its deep domestic instability and President Erdogan's steps toward implementing an "illiberal democracy"-would need to play a key role. Given Turkey's central position in the Black Sea region, Ankara could potentially help to mediate between the United States and NATO, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia. Moscow is not the only "illiberal democracy" that Washington needs to talk to. Turkey must be included as well.17

...A general settlement with Moscow that results in Ukrainian neutrality, but allows self-defense forces and permits Moscow to retain sovereignty over Crimea, will not necessarily result in a full "capitulation"-even if Washington must lower its sights as to what can and cannot be negotiated in Moscow's view. Despite renewed conflict in eastern Ukraine since mid-December 2016, President Trump has promised to "work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace along the (Russian-Ukrainian) border." 19 Yet Trump's promise to work for peace has not yet fully addressed the question of the Crimea. It has, however, been alleged that Trump officials may have been secretly attempting to make a deal with Moscow over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That deal, somewhat like the negotiated settlement that George Kennan had sought in 1949, was leaked to the press, leading to allegations of Trump administration collusion with Moscow.

...

Even if the Minsk II accords collapse, or if the Donbass region separates from Ukraine in a future partition, the United States, Europeans, and Russia will need to find ways to limit the damage. The deployment of international peacekeepers in the Donbass region under a general OSCE mandate (going beyond OSCE observers) could help ameliorate the situation considerably, once a political settlement can be reached. At the same time, the United States, EU, Russia, and Ukraine would need to begin reconstruction efforts through the implementation of a regional peace and development community backed by U.S./NATO, EU, and Russian security supports under a general OSCE mandate.

Much like Kennan's "Plan A" with respect to Germany in 1949, a new approach to Euro-Atlantic security through engaged negotiations with Moscow would accordingly seek to establish Ukraine as a formally neutral state with limited self-defense capabilities. Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski have likewise called for establishing Ukraine as a formally neutral country that is not a member of NATO or the Russian-led CSTO. For his part, Kissinger has also argued that Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with the European Union. Yet full EU membership is not a viable option either, as even the EU association accords require that Kiev gradually adopt Common Security and Defense policies and European Defense Agency policies. The problem is that the EU Eastern Partnership program has not yet been able to develop a formula that can balance Russian security, defense, political-economic, financial, and energy interests with those of the post-Soviet eastern European countries and of the EU itself. It is therefore essential that the European Union begin to think more strategically, in cooperation with the United States, as the two coordinate their rapprochement with Moscow. 21

NATO efforts to deploy rotating forces in the Baltic states and Poland are, as noted earlier, being met by a buildup of Russian nuclear and conventional forces in northwest Russia and Kaliningrad, plus major military maneuvers planned for September 2017. Despite the fact that President Putin's proposal to restart military-to-military relations and to increase intelligence cooperation between the United States and NATO was rejected in mid-February 2017 by Trump's new defense secretary, James Mattis, a step-by-step normalization of U.S.-European-Russia relations should be considered. 22 This could be accomplished by means of setting up joint security exercises and overflights in the Baltic region and Kaliningrad, and in the Black Sea region, and in joint U.S., EU, and Russian peacekeeping operations in Donbass and the Caucasus under a general OSCE mandate, for example. The establishment of NATO-Russian confidence-building measures as soon as possible is absolutely crucial if peace is to be maintained.

Once there is progress in these areas, the United States and EU could then begin to lift sanctions on Russia, while also looking for ways to bring the United States, EU, and Russia into greater political-economic, financial, and energy cooperation. One possibility would be a three-way trade and financial commission between Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia. Another step would be to bring Moscow back into the G-8 discussions after Russian membership was suspended in March 2014. Both G-8 and EU-Russian-Ukrainian discussions could likewise lead the EU to work out a political-economic association accord that better balances Russian and Ukrainian financial, political-economic, energy, and ecological interests-after the EU's abysmal failure to do so in 2013–14.

After sanctions on Russia are put to an end, offering Russia American and European investment, as well as joint military and security cooperation, could help to draw Moscow away from too great a financial and economic dependence on Beijing. It could likewise prevent the formation of a closer Sino-Russian military alliance, somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s, but in which Russia plays a role as a junior partner. Such a strategy must not, however, alienate China, which is the main indirect beneficiary of U.S.-European-Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

The United States is no longer locked into an existential war with the Soviet Union, and it should cooperate with the Russian Federation in order to sustain peace in a number of key areas: Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, Syria/Iraq, Islamic State, and North Korea. All these areas, among many others, need to be addressed as soon as possible through multiple forums, including the UN Security Council, the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council, the G-8, and Contact Groups, as well as through international conferences and bilateral U.S.-Russia, U.S.-China meetings. The United States, Europeans, Japan, and Russia will also need to channel China's rise to major power status in such a way that it does not harm Russian, Japanese, or American interests.

The dilemma is that it is the rise of China with its burgeoning global political-economic influence and increasingly powerful military capabilities-combined with a close alignment with Russia as a junior partner-that now represents the primary concern causing tremors in the United States and throughout the world. Washington will need to fully engage in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations with both Beijing and Moscow if the global system is not to soon polarize into two contending alliance systems: a U.S./NATO-EU-Japanese alliance of essentially democratic states vs. a Russia/CSTO-Chinese-Iranian alliance of "illiberal democracies"-with democratic India soon forced to choose sides. 23

... ... ...

The danger is that U.S. domestic pressure to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in more substantial negotiations with Putin could lead to an even deeper crisis. The Russian Federation sees itself as being walled off in Europe, with its "near abroad" penetrated by the NATOEU "double enlargement" which, Putin fears, could lead to the breakup of the Russian-led CSTO. The breakup of the CSTO could, in turn, lead to the disaggregation of the Russian Federation itself. Certain regions in Russia are nearly bankrupt, a fact which once again caused protests in March 2017 against corruption and economic stagnation throughout the country. The fears of a potential breakup of the Russian Federation (as occurred during World War I) have led Putin to seek out strong political-economic and military ties with China in the effort to form a Eurasian Union, if not a military alliance. But unlike the relatively peaceful disaggregation of the Soviet Union, the feared disaggregation of the Russian Federation and concurrent civil war could lead to full scale Russian backlash.

In this regard, the Syrian crisis could provide the spark for an even greater conflagration. This is because Moscow fears that the potential collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad will result in the loss of Russia's position in the Middle East, while permitting pan-Sunni movements to destabilize the immediate region as well as the northern Caucasus and other predominately Muslim regions inside the Russian Federation itself. The April 2017 Trump administration decision to engage in unilateral cruise missile strikes as a means to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical weaponry against its own population has been denounced by Moscow as yet another illegal unilateral U.S. attack against a sovereign state.

In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 .

In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27

... ... ...

This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer 2017): 166–83.

[Jun 30, 2017] What Might a Civil War Look Like Matt Bracken on The Hagmann Report

Jun 29, 2017 | www.infowars.com

There are many keyboard warriors itching for a civil war in the U.S. Some even type "bring it on" and post to popular Internet forums and comment boards. But do they really know what they are asking for?

Matt Bracken has seen civil wars in various countries where he's served in our armed forces. He's been there, and it ain't pretty.

This is an important broadcast that anyone wanting to understand the war of ideologies taking place right now - the cultural war we are seeing within the United States - should hear.

Original broadcast date: 6/27/17

Matt Bracken's website: https://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic...

Follow Matt on Twitter: @MattBracken48
Follow Doug Hagmann on Twitter: @HagmannPI

Show Website: http://www.HagmannAndHagmann.com
News./Information: http://www.HagmannReport.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HagmannReport
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HagmannReport
Doug's Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/douglas.hagmann

Pedro Wiegmann 10 hours ago

He's telling the truth. The left is using the language of incitement to war. It's the leaders and Hollywood scumbags MUST be taken out and tried for treason. They will start a massive war if we don't neutralize them immediately.

Scott F Davis 9 hours ago

As the instrumentalities of DOJ governance are rebuilt, We The People will probably have to wait until after the August recess before new US Attorneys and new FBI Director are confirmed. Pivotal window of time - July/ August 2017

Lori Snow 1 hour ago

I love Matt Bracken. I never miss what he has to say. Scary stuff but reality is scary. Who can deny his knowledge and patriotism? NOT me.He knows what he talks about and we better listen people. . I look for him here, on Infowars and Caravan to Midnight too.Thank you Matt.I like to say..."Release the Bracken.".

[Jun 30, 2017] in Lviv, ground zero for Ukrainian nationalism, where a recent survey and study found that 48 percent of undergraduates had paid bribes to get a better grade or to falsify attendance, while nearly all (the data sample was pretty small, 600) admitted to cheating on exams or tests

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 30, 2017 at 6:54 pm
As any fule kno, the way to get a good grade in higher education is to buy it.

Or so it seems in Lviv, ground zero for Ukrainian nationalism, where a recent survey and study found that 48% of undergraduates had paid bribes to get a better grade or to falsify attendance, while nearly all (the data sample was pretty small, 600) admitted to cheating on exams or tests.

Keep working on those European standards, Galicia – you're nearly there .

[Jun 30, 2017] Why The Elites Hate Putin by Justin Raimondo

Notable quotes:
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

On Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews (Part III)

by Justin Raimondo Posted on June 30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media, and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling, one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.

The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation: "Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin: Well, almost nothing."

Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:

"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."

This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:

"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."

So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic.

Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference, I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters "should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more perceptive progressives are saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."

This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:

"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people."

To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:

Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of " libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that the Ukraine snipers who shot at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a number of other places." Putin has evidence of Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier. And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."

And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way. Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that this is indeed the case .

There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies it: "I'm a capitalist!"

There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove," the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:

"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."

To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.

Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:

"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone. I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace and consciousness to the world."

Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such.

And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.

What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything to stop it. But why?

There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues. Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason. Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class, and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.

Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.

This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.

In his famous essay, " The End of History ," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle to the globalist project.

That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism" of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism. Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would demonize him and his country for this very reason.

As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.

Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is here , and the second part is here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film – here .

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

Read more by Justin Raimondo Vladimir Putin: A Suitor Spurned – June 27th, 2017 Who Tried to Kill Putin – Five Times? – June 25th, 2017 A Brief Missive – June 22nd, 2017 Our Rush to War in Syria – June 20th, 2017 Hodgkinson's Disease: Politics and Paranoia in the Age of Trump – June 18th, 2017

[Jun 28, 2017] Norman Solomon: Is 'Russiagate' Collapsing as a Political Strategy? by Norman Solomon

Notable quotes:
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

The plan for Democrats to run against Russia may be falling apart.

  • After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the horrific presidency of Donald Trump
  • After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia more than on plutocrats in America
  • After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian than pro-working-people
  • After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to democracy here at home
  • After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters

Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.

The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of Democrats in Congress are getting the message.

"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia," The Hill reported over the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople, "rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."

The Hill coverage added: "In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift."

Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under political illusions.

Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and voters around the country.

  • The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018," The Hill reported. "The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues more vital to them."
  • The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn, commented on the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country."
  • Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power. In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics at play across the country.

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way: "We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia, whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's going to happen on its own without us piling on."

Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."

Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool. In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail: "What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"

In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said: "If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about it."

But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now pulling up lame.

Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."

In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered," by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."

At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post opinion piece : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."

Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.

Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign - trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."

And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with working-class voters."

But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear weapons."

I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously - that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further demonizing the Russian government."

My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin, congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation with Russia."

Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?

In political terms, The Hill 's June 24 news article headlined "Dems Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will need help from constituents willing to bluntly tell them to snap out of it .

If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require real diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia , the world's two nuclear-weapons superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.

EndOfTheWorld , June 27, 2017 at 3:55 am

The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton News Network.

Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not three months ago.

Louis Fyne , June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

CNN producer on video admitting that it's all bunk courtesy of James Okeefe. Expect Fox News to run this clip 24/7. http://www.veritaslive.com/06-26-2017/americanpravdacnn.html

shinola , June 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months. If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really interesting (& damning).

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 11:31 am

Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.

  • The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
  • Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily manipulate public opinion.
  • Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to candidate behavior.
  • It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead trillionaires who own it.

NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the 2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this massive theft went to prison?

The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events, torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been held accountable for their lies and war crimes?

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 4:18 pm

By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.

Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:10 pm

The first and foremost action should be government funded elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access. Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system, foundation of democracy.

Lord Koos , June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different.

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm

That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning. We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.

oh , June 27, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:

  1. Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
  2. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues that determine the future of the country.
  3. Rather, they are pissing contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily manipulate public opinion while maximizing their revenue.
ChrisPacific , June 27, 2017 at 5:03 pm

All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete, real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own. While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those situations.

EoinW , June 27, 2017 at 8:23 am

Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Please don't conflate the left with the "Liberal Media". There is no left mass media in this country.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/878773715147902977

Why the Democratic party is doomed:

1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research).

2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is no evidence of collusion
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc ]. Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.

3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually, Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned or aligned.

4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the CIA's Mike Pompeo.

5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality, economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism, but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.

6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat, the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.

Carolinian , June 27, 2017 at 8:34 am

I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room. Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.

Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.

fresno dan , June 27, 2017 at 9:56 am

integer June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that! Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research)."

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:26 pm

Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.

Tim , June 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm

The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats, lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers at best.

It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general 98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways. The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry. That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.

John k , June 27, 2017 at 2:36 pm

The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump..

Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face, French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.

Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum, country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces, never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.

Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in three way race is landslide.

oh , June 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm

I don't think I'd count on Bernie. He loves his committee appointments too much and will never leave the DImRats.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Just to be clear, the text in my comment above was written by Julian Assange, not me. See the link at the top of said comment.

Andrew Watts , June 27, 2017 at 5:06 pm

In response to point number six: There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.

Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would govern as a authoritarian.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 9:08 pm

There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.

Granted, however it shouldn't be forgotten that there are significant barriers to reforming the D-party too.

Lambert Strether , June 27, 2017 at 11:33 pm

Invert "legal barrier" to "asset to be seized"

fajensen , June 27, 2017 at 5:19 am

The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.

Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth paying 50 kUSD for".

Darn , June 27, 2017 at 5:37 am

+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either.

polecat , June 27, 2017 at 11:08 am

'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just might be a DIMOCRAT !"

sid_finster , June 27, 2017 at 11:14 am

Team D will continue to double down because it is in the interests of those running Team D to do so.

Ignacio , June 27, 2017 at 5:50 am

The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe. Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).

Germany's gas pact with Putin's Russia endangers Atlantic alliance

mundanomaniac , June 27, 2017 at 1:53 pm

and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time, only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick again, alas now, when they are the paragons of success in the west.

But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is showing a decent kind of leader on the planet. Cheers from Bavaria's

mundo http://astromundanediary.blogspot.de/2017/06/6_18.html

Benedict@Large , June 27, 2017 at 6:02 am

So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well, and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist" third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to lead what little remains of the party of the working people.

No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest place they could find from where the problem really was.

Mike , June 27, 2017 at 8:38 am

As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence, they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles before looking to these "saviors".

Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans – sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but an entire edifice.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 11:23 am

Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )?

Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.

Mike , June 27, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.

RenoDino , June 27, 2017 at 8:42 am

http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.

Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.

Arizona Slim , June 27, 2017 at 8:44 am

In the last six months, I have gone from being curious about Russia to learning how to speak Russian. Thanks for the inspiration, Democrats.

Andrew Watts , June 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!

Tertium Squid , June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

Now I remember where I first heard of Norman Solomon. http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Norman+Solomon

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162106845381/why-the-new-healthcare-bill-will-be-a-loser

Tom Stone , June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

But, but, it was HER TURN! And her investors are really pissed off. $1.5B up in smoke and not even a blue dress to show for it.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 27, 2017 at 9:31 am

If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't deliver?

NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired a host of climate change deniers.

For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats blame? A powerless figure in Nader.

sid_finster , June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am

This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then

Darius , June 27, 2017 at 1:08 pm

It also is attacking the Republicans from the right, always a Team D wet dream.

Karl Kolchak , June 27, 2017 at 2:58 pm

Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.

John Wright , June 27, 2017 at 8:58 am

The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"

The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military.

The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas, with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a Palestine election.

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

Disclaimer, this link is from Trump's son-in-law's publication, but the audio has not been questioned AFAIK..

I suspect the American voter does not believe they were "played" by the Russians.

But they may believe that is what the Democrats are attempting to do with the entire Russia-gate campaign

As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign.

The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance.

Left in Wisconsin , June 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm

The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence.

To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"

I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should have won is a rationale for staying the course.

Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose than change.

flora , June 27, 2017 at 9:18 am

"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign. The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."

Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.

Kevin Horlock , June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones. When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less the end-game of all this. And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020? Shameful shit right there

John D. , June 27, 2017 at 10:13 am

Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed to failure, methinks.

Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.

So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there was anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with. Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway

Jonathan Holland Becnel , June 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Good to see this Neoliberal farce go away.

Indrid Cold , June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm

What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?

Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.

This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.

Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:

  1. Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
  2. Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
  3. Controlling energy transit and access points.

Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.

John Wright , June 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm

Re the country list. It was Wesley Clark who saw the list of middle east/African countries the USA would attack and destroy.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.""

It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would have been accomplished. But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer, but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.

The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks. The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed. However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at the knees

You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though. Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and 96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't represent the actual choice of the citizens.

Indrid Cold , June 27, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part of their war goals in ww2

kurtismayfield , June 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm

This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right.

  1. Kick the left. Always.
  2. Pretend to #resist, while really you are in it to keep the political money spigot flowing.
  3. While distracting their supporters with Russia gate/GA-06/Trump's latest twit, Medicare and ACA get gutted.
  4. Run on returning to the status quo on 2018, taking single payer will be off the table.

It's brilliant... If you know their goal is to move the country right and be a bulwark against the left.

[Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad­-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident­-and more than pathetic, too­-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going­-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda­-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington ­– the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs ­- was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere­ – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
Jun 22, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

This article was first published by Contra Corner

Bull's eye!

"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!"

The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for -- handcuffs and a perp walk?

Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".

If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad­-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information.

Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.

Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty" for the status quo; and whose naďve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus operandi of the Imperial City.

Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.

After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.

So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources and methods" in the slightest.

The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially Washington's adversaries­–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.

Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.

Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".

Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.

But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.

That became more than evident­-and more than pathetic, too­-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"

So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight jacket.

Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.

Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.

No he won't!

Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going­-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to.

So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors­-even if the crime itself never happened.

To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.

Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.

They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.

So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.

Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America.

But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.

In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the course of the next year.

Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda­-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.

So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington ­– the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs ­- was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.

From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.

Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere­ – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.

So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.

There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?

In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.

Pathetically, they still think its game on.

David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Jun 26, 2017] The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign by Patrick Martin

Jun 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.

The editorial was well-timed, coming on the morning of the same day that the US military shot down a Syrian warplane, setting off a dramatic escalation in the US conflict with Russia. The editors of the Times have the closest ties with US military and intelligence officials and no doubt were aware that something was being planned, if they were not briefed about the details.

Under the headline "Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia," the Times uses the language of war to assert: "A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be."

The Times presents zero evidence to back up a wild reference to "the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts." The editorial simply declares, "American intelligence agencies have concluded," followed by a long list of allegations:

"Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of senior officials at the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. They passed tens of thousands of emails to the website WikiLeaks, which posted them throughout the last months of the campaign in an attempt to damage the Clinton campaign.

"Even more disturbing, hackers sought access to voter databases in at least 39 states, and in some cases tried to alter or delete voter data. They also appear to have tried to take over the computers of more than 100 local election officials in the days before the November 8 vote."

Editorial page editor James Bennet presents not a single fact that supports the Times ' assertions. What is the evidence that there were "direct orders" from Putin, or that hackers linked to Russian intelligence raided Democratic email accounts and supplied material to WikiLeaks, or that (other?) hackers tried to access voter databases and the computers of local election officials? The entire mountain of accusations is suspended in air.

If one traces back the charges to their original sources, they all turn out to be factually unsupported claims by US intelligence agencies, made either in public "findings" issued in October 2016 and January 2017, or in a series of leaks from within the military-intelligence apparatus, mainly to the Times and the Washington Post .

The most recent allegations, about alleged hacking into voter databases and local election computers, are based on a National Security Agency (NSA) report leaked to The Intercept web publication, which even The Intercept admitted contained no underlying evidence to substantiate the NSA's claims.

Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.

In its brazen contempt for basic standards of evidence, the Times ignores more plausible sources of the leaked Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party information, such as an individual or individuals within the Democratic Party. The newspaper makes no mention of the content of the leaked emails, which document the efforts of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to sabotage the primary challenge of Bernie Sanders.

Read also: Germany falls in love with warmongering Trump

For all the rhetorical heat about a supposed Russia assault on "the integrity of American democracy," as the Times puts it, there is no such outrage over the dozens of interventions by Washington to manipulate elections all over the world.

One recent study found 81 instances-not counting outright CIA-backed military coups-in which the US government financed political parties, organized disinformation campaigns, carried out assassinations, blackmailed candidates, or otherwise sought to install its own nominees by rigging elections in countries on every continent.

One of the most flagrant such examples was the 1996 presidential election in Russia, won by the US-backed Boris Yeltsin (See: " Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin: When the White House fixed a Russian election ").

Apart from its continuous interference in elections, the US government is engaged in non-stop snooping operations against foreign governments, even those with which it is supposedly allied. Just a few years ago, it was revealed that the Obama administration had hacked-yes, HACKED-the cell phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Then-US President Obama acknowledged that the US does all sorts of "stuff" and offered a phony apology.

As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.

The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.

The Times , channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime.

A recent Times article, focused on Senate passage of new sanctions against Russia, spells out the issues relatively clearly. In "Leaders Wary of Trump May Have an Ally: Congress," the Times asserts that congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican, "are working to ensure that American foreign policy remains rooted in the trans-Atlantic alliance against traditional rivals like Russia." It praises Republican efforts to advance "an anti-Trump foreign policy" and impose sanctions against Russia for its actions in backing the Syrian government.

In the eyes of the factions of the ruling class for which the Times speaks, the problem is not that Russia is interfering with "American democracy," but that it is interfering with critical geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle East. The newspaper is attempting to condition American public opinion and overcome popular opposition to an escalating military confrontation with the world's second-largest nuclear power.

For the working class, the fight against the Trump administration and the fight against its opponents in the political establishment is the same fight. It is a fight against the capitalist ruling class, which is preparing to inflict on the people of the entire world a new and catastrophic world war.

[Jun 26, 2017] WaPos big scoop on alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, brought to you with the help of everyones favorite Anonymous Sources

Notable quotes:
"... My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant to be. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
J.T. , June 25, 2017 at 6:18 am
WaPo's "big scoop" on alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, brought to you with the help of everyone's favorite Anonymous Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banner-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.fe1f6735d9f3
yalensis , June 25, 2017 at 8:30 am
My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant to be.

[Jun 26, 2017] The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance

Notable quotes:
"... the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/ ..."
"... In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria June 26, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT

The 2014 coup d'etat in Kiev had been plotted by US in advance:

" the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/

the document was issued in Sep 05, 2013

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style.

[Jun 26, 2017] Trump-Russia collusion fades from the media headlines

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al ,

June 25, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Washington Examiner: Trump-Russia collusion fades from the media headlines
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-russia-collusion-fades-from-the-media-headlines/article/2626994

David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians."

Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also publicly stated .

That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.

"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .

Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
####

This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle is just too good to let go.

marknesop , June 25, 2017 at 1:38 pm
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence. Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere. Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open; a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.

[Jun 25, 2017] Alliance of Trump and the deep state on the basis of neocon agenda is quite possible

Jun 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova, June 24, 2017 at 11:06 PM

This is a warning to several prominent commenters of this blog: it is quite possible that Faustian bargain of alliance with the deep state to depose Trump might backfire and produce completely opposite result -- strong and durable alliance of Trump and the deep state on the basis of the same model that existed from 2003 -- inverted totalitarism introduced by Bush II. In this case you can kiss hopes not only for impeachment, but also for 2020 reversal goodbye.

http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2017/06/23/criminal-laws-counterinsurgency/

Many "never-Trumpers" see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.

After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

Inverted totalitarism is completely compatible with Trump_vs_deep_state ("bastard neoliberlaism"):

Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors.

However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

[Jun 25, 2017] Al Jazeera supported a Muslim Brotherhood color revolution in Egypt. Thats a fact

Jun 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody | Jun 24, 2017 5:07:37 AM | 64

@Jean | Jun 23, 2017 1:34:45 PM | 2

Sisi hates the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Jazeera, too. Al Jazeera supported a Muslim Brotherhood color revolution in Egypt. Egypt has imprisoned one of their journalists a long time ago.

[Jun 25, 2017] If Russia Wants the Syria Mess, Let Them Have It by Ted Galen Carpente

Jun 25, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

U.S. leaders are-to put it mildly-indifferent to Moscow's concerns. But while Russia's Syria policy is straightforward and coherent, U.S. policy is a contradictory, incoherent mess. The Obama administration made it clear that Bashar al-Assad could not be part of any future Syrian government. At first, the Trump administration seemed inclined to reconsider that approach. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson initially indicated that Washington would no longer demand Assad's removal. But just days later, a chemical attack occurred in rebel-held town. Trump immediately blamed Assad's forces (despite conflicting evidence ) and ordered cruise-missile strikes against the Syrian air base that Washington alleged was the source of the attack. Tillerson subsequently stated that Assad must leave office before any political settlement could occur (essentially a return to the Obama policy), only to say days later that the Trump administration's policy had not changed and that regime change was not part of the agenda. By this time, intelligent observers could be excused if they were totally confused.

That is hardly the only manifestation of U.S. policy incoherence regarding Syria. Washington's attempt to calibrate support so that it strengthens so-called Syrian moderates has led to multiple embarrassing episodes. The Obama administration's program to identify and train moderate military units was a $500 million fiasco that produced only a handful of fighters-most of whom were promptly captured by or surrendered to their adversaries. Other ventures fared little better. At one point a CIA-backed Syrian faction apparently engaged in combat against another faction that the Pentagon supported . More recently, Washington has been caught in a dilemma as fellow NATO member Turkey attacked Syrian Kurdish units that were battling ISIS with American assistance.

Russia is especially mystified at the U.S. flirtation with factions that are anything but secular moderates. One of those groups is the Nusra Front, at one time Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. Former CIA Director David Petraeus openly advocated U.S. military cooperation with that organization. Other de facto U.S. rebel allies display more than few signs of being Islamists rather than moderates-even given a broad definition of the latter term. Moscow's fury reached a new level in the past few weeks as the United States has launched air strikes against militias allied with the Assad regime in southeastern Syria. Russia asserts that those forces were battling ISIS and other militant factions, and that Washington's actions play into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Both the Kremlin and the White House need to make serious moves to defuse growing tensions before a potentially cataclysmic clash takes place between Russian and American forces in Syria. The bulk of the changes must come from the American side.

The United States should defer to Russia regarding Syria policy. Moscow has far more significant security interests at stake in Syria and the broader Middle East. Northern Syria lies barely 600 miles from the Russian frontier. Syria is some 6,000 miles from America's homeland. In the process of deferring to Russia, Washington would also off-load the responsibility and risks onto the Kremlin.

It is doubtful that any outside power can truly bring an end to the fighting in Syria, much less restore a stable, united country. Such intervention thus far has bred only resentment and terrorist retaliation. It is better if Russia incurs the risks and suffers the negative consequences of geopolitical meddling than if the United States does so. Syria could well become another Afghanistan for Russia. That would be tragic, but it is preferable to Syria becoming another Vietnam or Iraq for America. And continued U.S. meddling in Syria certainly is not worth triggering a new cold war -and perhaps a hot war-with Russia. Yet that is the perilous path our nation is following.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

[Jun 25, 2017] Trumps Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies by MAGGIE HABERMAN

NYT tries again to flare Russiagate... The particular pressitute assgned to this task was MAGGIE HABERMAN
Jun 25, 2017 | www.msn.com

But the campaign is long over. While many of Mr. Trump's allies and supporters are still reluctant to blame Russia, the American intelligence community has said that Russian interference is a fact, not an opinion. Mr. Trump's strategy of muddying his position has let the Russia issue grow , gumming up the gears in his administration's efforts to move forward with major legislation and decisions.

"Geopolitically, it touches everything," Mr. DuHaime said.

That includes some important decisions Mr. Trump will have to make: whether to support tougher sanctions against Russia ; to give back Russian properties seized by the Obama administration ; or to try to remove Robert S. Mueller III , the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Officials in a number of states have in the meantime complained that the White House has done little to try to safeguard the 2018 and 2020 elections against potential Russian intrusions, even as evidence grows that there were efforts to tamper with voter rolls last year.

Through it all, the president's allies continue to see Russia as a boogeyman for Democrats and a rapacious news media, an issue his core voters think is manufactured.

"He doesn't want to be set by this narrative that the Russians hacked the election when he has to negotiate with Russia, who, by the way, sits on China's border," said Sam Nunberg, a former campaign aide to Mr. Trump. "If Putin adamantly denies that he did it, it's frankly not an issue to the president."

[Jun 24, 2017] For neocons peace is a four-letter word by Uri Avnery

Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

When a Briton or American speaks about a "four-letter word", he means a vulgar sexual term, a word not to be mentioned in polite society. In Israel we also have such a word, a word of four letters. A word not to mention. This word is "Shalom", peace. (In Hebrew, "sh" is one letter, and the "a" is not written.)

For years now this word has disappeared from intercourse (except as a greeting). Every politician knows that it is deadly. Every citizen knows that it is unmentionable. There are many words to replace it. "Political agreement". "Separation". "We are here and they are there". "Regional arrangement". To name a few.

And here comes Donald Trump and brings the word up again. Trump, a complete ignoramus, does not know that in this country it is taboo.

He wants to make peace here. SH-A-L-O-M. So he says. True, there is not the slightest chance that he really will make peace. But he has brought the word back into the language. Now people speak again about peace. Shalom.

Peace? What is peace?

There are all kind of peaces. Starting from a little peace, a baby-peace, to a large, even mighty peace.

Therefore, before opening a serious debate about peace, we must define what we mean. An intermission between two wars? Non-belligerence? Existence on different sides of walls and fences? A prolonged armistice? A Hudna (in Arabic culture, an armistice with a fixed expiry date)?

Something like the peace between India and Pakistan? The peace between Germany and France – and if so, the peace before World War I or the peace prevailing now? The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, or the Hot Peace between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump?

There are all kinds of peace situations. What kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace are we talking about? The peace between a horse and its rider? The peace between a people of masters and a people of slaves? Something like the peace between the South African Apartheid regime and the Bantustans it had created for the Blacks? Or a quite different kind of peace, a peace between equals?

It's about this peace I would like to speak. Not "real" peace. Not "perfect" peace. Not "complete" peace.

About peace. Peace pure and simple. Without qualifications, please.

When did it all start? The conflict that now dominates the lives of the two peoples, when did it begin?

Hard to say.

It is easy to say: it started when the first Jewish immigrant reached these shores.

Sounds simple. But it is not altogether true.

It seems that the pre-Zionist Bilu immigrants, who came here in the early 1800s, did not arouse hostility.

I have a theory about that: some time before the Bilu (short for "House of Jacob, Go!") came here, a religious German sect, the Templers, settled in this country. They had no political aims, just a religious vision. They set up model villages and townships, and the locals were grateful. When the first Jews arrived, the locals assumed that this was more of the same.

Then came the Zionist movement, which definitely had political aims. They spoke only about a "national home", but the founder, Theodor Herzl, had previously written a book called "The Jewish State" (or, more accurately, "The Jewstate"). The aim was hidden for a time, because the country belonged to the Ottoman Empire.

Only very few of the local population realized right from the beginning that this was a mortal danger for them. A large majority of the Muslims saw the Jews only as an inferior religious community, which the Prophet had commanded them to protect.

So when did the conflict start? There are various theories about that. I adhere to the theory of the almost-forgotten historian Aharon Cohen, who pointed to a particular event. In 1908, the revolution of the "Young Turks" broke out. The Islamic Ottoman Empire turned into a nationalist state. As a reaction, there arose in Palestine and the neighboring countries an Arab national movement, which called for the "decentralization" of the empire, giving autonomy to its many peoples.

A local Arab leader approached the Zionist representative in Jerusalem with a tempting offer: if the Jews support the Arab movement, the Arabs will support Zionist immigration.

In great excitement, the Zionist representative rushed to the then leader of the Zionist world movement, Max Nordau, a German Jew, and urged him to accept the offer. But Nordau treated the offer with contempt. After all, it was the Turks who were in possession of the country. What did the Arabs have to offer?

It is difficult to know how history would have evolved if such a Zionist-Arab cooperation had come into being. But a European Jew could not even imagine such a turn of events. Therefore the Zionists cooperated with the Turkish – and later with the British – colonial regime against the local Arab population.

Since then, the conflict between the two peoples has intensified from generation to generation. Now peace is further away than ever.

But what is peace?

The past cannot be obliterated. Anyone who suggests that the past should be ignored and that we "start again from the beginning" is dreaming.

Each of the two peoples lives in a past of its own. The past shapes their character and their behavior every day and every hour. But the past of one side is totally different from the past of the other.

This is not just a war between two peoples. It is also a war between two histories. Two histories which contradict each other in almost every particular, though they concern the very same events.

For example: Every Zionist knows that until the 1948 war, the Jews acquired land with good money, money contributed by Jews around the world. Every Arab knows that the Zionists bought the land from absentee landlords who lived in Haifa, Beirut or Monte Carlo, and then demanded that the Turkish (and later the British) police evict the fellahin who had tilled the land for many generations. (All the land had originally belonged to the Sultan, but when the empire was bankrupt the Sultan sold it to Arab speculators.)

Another example: Every Jew is proud of the Kibbutzim, a unique achievement of human progress and social justice, which were frequently attacked by their Arab neighbors. For the Arabs, the Kibbutzim were just sectarian instruments of displacement and deportation.

Another example: Every Jew knows that the Arabs started the 1948 war in order to exterminate the Jewish community. Every Arab knows that in that war, the Jews evicted half the Palestinian people from their homeland.

And so forth: nowadays the Israelis believe that the Palestinian Authority, which pays a monthly salary to the families of "murderers", supports terrorism. The Palestinians believe that the Authority is duty-bound to support the families whose sons and daughters have sacrificed their lives for their people.

And so forth, without end.

(By the way, I am very proud of having invented the only scientifically sound definition of "terrorist", which both sides can accept: "Freedom fighters are on my side, terrorists are on the other side.")

There will never be peace if the two peoples do not know the historical narrative of the other side. There is no need to accept the narrative of the opponent. One can deny it totally. But one has to know it, in order to understand the other people and respect it.

Peace does not have to be based on mutual love. But it must be based on mutual respect. Mutual respect can arise only when each people knows the historical narrative of the other side. When it understands that, it will also understand why the other people acts the way it does, and what is needed for peaceful co-existence.

That would be much easier if every Israeli Jew learned Arabic, and every Palestinian Arab learned Hebrew. That would not solve the problem, of course, but it would bring the solution much closer.

When each of the two peoples understands that the other side is not a bloodthirsty monster, but acts from natural motives, it will discover many positive points in the culture of the other side. Personal contacts will be established, perhaps even friendships.

This is already happening in Israel, though on a small scale. In the academic world, for example. And in the hospitals. Jewish patients are often surprised to discover that their nice and competent doctor is an Arab and that Arab male nurses are frequently more gentle than the Jewish ones.

That cannot replace dealing with the real problems. Our two peoples are divided by real, weighty controversies. There is a problem about land, about borders, about refugees. There are problems of security and innumerable other issues. A war of more than a hundred years will not end without painful compromises.

When there is a basis for negotiations between equals, a basis of mutual respect, insoluble problems will suddenly become soluble problems.

But the precondition for this process is the return of the four-letter-word to the language.

It is impossible to do something big, something historic, if there is no belief that it is possible.

A person will not plug an electric cord into a wall if they do not believe that they will be connected to electricity. They must believe that the lights will go on.

Nobody will start peace negotiations if they believe that peace is impossible.

The belief in peace will not make peace certain. But at least it will make peace possible.

Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli Knesset. Read other articles by Uri , or visit Uri's website .

[Jun 21, 2017] Good Agent, Bad Agent Robert Mueller and 9-11

Notable quotes:
"... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
"... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
"... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
"... Intelligence Matters ..."
"... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
"... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
www.forbes.com
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different. As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's not the one that Trump supporters would have us think.

The President's loyal minions, following a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign against Mueller, claiming that he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government, including the White House, as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he was involved in a major national crisis–namely, the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States.

The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.

Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with two of the future hijackers: Khalid Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi, who had battle experience in Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the time had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.

The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted into the United States on tourist visas. They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver licenses, and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They also had contact with a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego office, charged with monitoring the city's Saudi community.

As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence of possible terrorist plans to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn the Bureau about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to let these men get on planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped crash it into the Pentagon.

While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."

Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that "while here [in America] the hijackers effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed them to domestic coverage." There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.

Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry. The FBI refused to cooperate, blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him. Despite insisting that the informant had done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which Graham refused to do.

As Graham would later describe in is book Intelligence Matters, the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the public report, and even then it was heavily redacted.

Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known.

So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders.

What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct would be to try to preserve some semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency. But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with the intelligence agencies–what some people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the best interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one way Mueller could do so is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on Trump and run him out of office.

As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."

Note: More detail, and complete sources, on the FBI informant scandal and the Joint Inquiry's investigation can be found in my book The 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11.

[Jun 21, 2017] Russiagate is a new policy of Russian containment by the deep state

Notable quotes:
"... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
"... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova -> Paine ... June 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM

"[Russiagate] is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state"

I agree. Very precisely formulated. thank you --

Paine June 21, 2017 at 08:06 PM

Russia is obviously tampering as much as optimal

Nothing new

Hence my suggesting putin is jut acting like all great powers must act to be great powers

ilsm Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 08:47 AM

It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM

Paine -> ilsm... June 21, 2017 at 04:37 PM

Indeed

libezkova -> Paine ...

"Hence my suggesting Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "

Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American exceptionalism is pretty toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right movements poison discourse in their respective countries.

Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then Ukrainians (who are now experiencing Central African level of poverty) but still huge.

I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly. But that's just me.

https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/06/05/transcript-putin-interview-with-megyn-kelly-of-nbc-news/

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the presidential election in the USA.

We have talked about it with former president Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence.

When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it.

I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.

Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply convinced that no interference from the outside, in any country, even a small one, let alone in such a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome of the elections. It is not possible. Ever.

Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.

Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't it?

Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.

Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?

Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their political domestic processes.

Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.

Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.

Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.

Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.

Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election, and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?

Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.

There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.

Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed in those meetings?

Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that my jaw dropped.

Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?

Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every day, routine work. Do you think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand what you are asking me?

Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.

Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk to our ambassadors all over the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with whom he met there. Had there been something out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister and the minister would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.

... ... ...

Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country full of corruption, a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered, a country in which dissidents could wind up in jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is your message?

Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is without question so. No one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry and some other domestic developments, we see things happen here that are typical of other countries, I do not see anything unusual in it.

We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of view. However, if people, while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective law in place, then of course, the law enforcement agencies try to restore order.

I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and in my discussions with other European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling order, something that we often see in other countries, including in the United States.

Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?

We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it is done in a friendly manner, in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will not accept when such things are used as a tool of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.

[Jun 21, 2017] The CIAs principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.

Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

RGC

, June 21, 2017 at 06:44 AM
The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
21/06/2017

The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.
....................

Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.

http://www.defenddemocracy.press/the-new-york-times-steps-up-its-anti-russia-campaign/

RGC -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 06:47 AM
Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul Buck Party Consensus on Russia and Iran Sanctions


Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal explains that these sanctions punish Russia and Iran and unnecessarily intensifies the conflict between the US and these countries

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19337

sanjait -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Dead wrong about Bernie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-russia-blackmail-links-vladimir-putin-nice-things-democratic-senator-a7647546.html

Nice try though!

RGC -> sanjait... , June 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM
Thursday, June 15, 2017

WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:

"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

anne -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 07:25 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

June 17, 2017

Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia

anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 01:21 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

June 17, 2017

Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia

A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more - but President Trump doesn't seem to care.

The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost five months in office, the commander in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of the Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of his electoral win.

If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians - and whether Mr. Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's indifference would be front-page news.

So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.

Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of...

ilsm -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 04:22 PM
Not to worry Trump is doing all Obama did and more to sell Syria to al Qaeda.

Too busy keeping the Wahhabis happy to want to mess with Russia over a few millions Balts' desires.

The US is not offering the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts it is already committed to the Wahhabis.

anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 01:24 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of...

[ Interesting passage. ]

Paine -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM
Why critique this campaign against Russia
As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it

Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership

Point out the motivation

Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres

Yes the NYT and the WP

Both are working with the deep state
Once called the invisible government
Much as they have in he past

Why I like he color revolution analogy

These media titans are working with the DS
Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan

Paine -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 08:47 AM
Typo hazard

Russia is obviously tampering as much as optimal

Nothing new

Hence my suggesting putin is jut acting like all great powers must act to be great powers

ilsm -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts.

Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague!

Paine -> ilsm... , June 21, 2017 at 04:37 PM

Indeed
anne -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 09:08 AM
Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of atmosphere makes us wary of using any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves the way in which China is generally regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.

[Jun 21, 2017] House Russia Probe Hobbled by Sharp Divide on Intelligence Panel

Jun 21, 2017 | www.msn.com

But Nunes complained on the radio show Monday that Democrats want to look now into accusations that Trump committed obstruction of justice because, he asserted, the probe so far has turned up "no evidence of collusion" between the president and the Russians.

"Republicans are getting tired of what appears to be investigations without a crime," Nunes said. "If someone doesn't pull a Russian out of a hat soon," he said, people "have got to question what is going on."

[Jun 20, 2017] Deregulation in action

Notable quotes:
"... The Aluminium cladding on the Grenfell Tower had oxygen all the way round it was mounted with an air gap and a flammable polystyrene inner. The cladding is under the windows that can be opened. Once the polystyrene is exposed, say from rupture of the aluminium coating. ..."
"... 'Like other organic compounds, polystyrene is flammable. Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "Easily Ignited." ..."
"... This is off-topic and should be in the MF Cafe. Pls take the conversation there. Thx. Mod ..."
www.informationclearinghouse.info

ph on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:35 am UTC

Jun 20, 2017 | thesaker.is
Regarding the media presentation of the fire in London:

The Aluminium cladding on the Grenfell Tower had oxygen all the way round it was mounted with an air gap and a flammable polystyrene inner. The cladding is under the windows that can be opened. Once the polystyrene is exposed, say from rupture of the aluminium coating.

The expanded polystyrene core melts at 240 C so at this point the cladding loses its structural integrity.

'Like other organic compounds, polystyrene is flammable. Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "Easily Ignited."

As a consequence, although it is an efficient insulator at low temperatures, its use is prohibited in any exposed installations in building construction if the material is not flame-retardant. It must be concealed behind drywall, sheet metal, or concrete.[citation needed]

Foamed polystyrene plastic materials have been accidentally ignited and caused huge fires and losses, for example at the Düsseldorf International Airport and the Channel tunnel (where polystyrene was inside a railcar that caught fire).'

'Like all organic compounds, polystyrene burns to give carbon dioxide and water vapor.'

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

US Department of Energy report

'In the vicinity of room temperature, the reaction between aluminum metal and water to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen is the following: 2Al + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2. The gravimetric hydrogen capacity from this reaction is 3.7 wt.% and the volumetric hydrogen capacity is 46 g H2/L.

Although this reaction is thermodynamically favorable, it does not proceed due to the presence of a coherent and adherent layer of aluminum oxide which forms on the surface of aluminum particles which prevents water from cominginto direct contact with the aluminum metal.

The key to inducing and maintaining the reaction of aluminum with water near room temperature is the continual removal and/or disruption of this coherent/adherent aluminum oxide layer. '

'In this case, the molten nature of the [aluminium] alloy prevents the development of a coherent and adherent aluminum oxide layer. '
.

'Thus, an engineering approach might be a continuous water stream to maintain a roughly steady state hydrogen generation rate'

'The Al/water reaction is highly exothermic with an enthalpy of reaction of about 280 kJ/mol H2 at ~50-100 C '

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/aluminium_water_hydrogen.pdf

Aluminium has a melting point of 660 C. When the aluminium melts its protective oxide outer layer is removed causing any steam or water such as from the burning of the polystyrene to cause a highly exothermic reaction that releases hydrogen. This saw the rapid spread of the flames over the skin of the building.

The firefighters adding water to areas they could not quench acted as an accelerant to the fire once it had rose as steam and reacted with the molten aluminium.

Any iron or copper used as building material with rust or oxidation or impurities could even cause small thermite reactions with the aluminium oxide. This exothermic reaction can be seen on the Hindenberg disaster.

There could be a creation of higly volatile triorganoaluminium compounds:

"trimethylaluminium" has the formula Al2(CH3)6 (see figure). With large organic groups, triorganoaluminium compounds exist as three-coordinate monomers, such as triisobutylaluminium. Such compounds are widely used in industrial chemistry, despite the fact that they are often highly pyrophoric.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Organoaluminium_compounds_and_related_hydrides

Simple large life nets could have been used with springs to save the people.

The fact the outer layer of the building is in an exothermic reaction can be clearly seen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ThermiteReaction.jpg

Compare video of the Grenfell Tower and Hindenburg – that was using aluminium paint according to A NASA scientist.

Chemical analysis of the cladding might help further at this stage.

This is off-topic and should be in the MF Cafe. Pls take the conversation there. Thx. Mod

[Jun 20, 2017] The presstitutes are obviously not that good. They went nuclear on Trumps candidacy, and he got elected anyway.

marknesop.wordpress.com
Cyril on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:07 am UTC
Jun 20, 2017 | thesaker.is
The presstitutes are obviously not that good. They went nuclear on Trump's candidacy, and he got elected anyway. So it's quite clear that a large fraction of the US electorate - at least 50 percent - no longer trust the media. The more the press lie, the more their credibility evaporates.
Mr Reynard on June 14, 2017 , at 6:00 am UTC
Softly, softly the people will believe the media, like the people in ex-communist countries believed their government ??
Veritas on June 14, 2017 , · at 2:51 pm UTC
Hi Cyril,

The Western MSM are masters at "fake news" and it does have an effect – it might be diminishing but it still has traction. This wasn't about the US electorate – it was about how Russia is perceived to outsiders who only read and listen to their MSM and aren't as well read as people here.

Tomsen on June 16, 2017 , · at 3:49 pm UTC
The idea is that as long the majority believes in the fake news and lies, the minority who dont believe will have to waste their time in endless discussions with the majority.
Divide and conquer again again.

[Jun 20, 2017] FOIA Request On Susan Rices Unmaskings Rejected Because Records Were Moved To Obama Library

Obama was closely allied with intelligence services. So they now protect him and his close circle.
Notable quotes:
"... Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following: ..."
"... Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request. ..."
Jun 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Back in April, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents related to the unmasking of "the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team" by Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the Obama administration, Judicial Watch has been informed by the National Security Council that records related to their request can not be shared because they " have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library" and will "remain closed to the public for five years."

Here is the full letter received from the National Secruity Council:

"Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office."

Here was Judicial Watch's full request:
  1. Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following:
    • Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
    • The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or the Clinton presidential campaign.
    • Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government.
    • The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.
  2. Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response to any request described in part 1 of this request.
  3. Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.

Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful at getting Trump impeached in the near future, 5 years is still enough time to make sure that his reputation is sufficiently tarnished that he gets booted from office in 2020. Even better, as The Hill points out today, Joe Biden appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at the White House in 2020 which means we may never actually get a shot at understanding exactly what happened in the months leading up to the 2016 election.

HopefulCynical Anarchyteez , Jun 19, 2017 11:36 PM

There is no bigger shitstain than Barack Obama. And the Deep State scum are furiously covering up his many crimes.

tenpanhandle - HopefulCynical , Jun 19, 2017 11:42 PM

Past president's records kept secret for 5 years. Current president's records leaked daily.

07564111 - The_Dude , Jun 19, 2017 11:56 PM

America has no bread yet the circus continues :D

Who would have thought that the collapse of an 'empire' could be so fucking amusing. ;)

philipat - peddling-fiction , Jun 20, 2017 12:29 AM

OK, so let me see if I am understanding this correctly. All any administration has to do is obfuscate and delay FOIA requests until it leaves Office, then everything remains sealed for 5 years?

This cannot have been the intention behind the FOIA and it make the adminstration completely untransparent and unaccountable, which of course irrespective in the case of the Obozo administration, it always was (despite the fact that this was the self-declared "most transparent administration ever"). This goes nicely along the ability of members of an old administration to decline to appear before Congressional hearings even under subpoena.

Oh, and BTW the Presidential Library hasn't even been built yet so where are the records now? Of course, if it ever does get built on the South side of Chicago (if Chicago still exists by then) there is a very good chance that it will get burnt down and all its contents destroyed. That would be convenient wouldn't it?

This completely wreaks of "Banana Republic". What if there is a Court Order; does this still apply?

nmewn - Arnold , Jun 20, 2017 7:05 AM

To be followed by...

"Welp, looks like Elmer Fudd Moving & Storage LLC never delivered the requested documents to the Obama Bath House Library and Massage Parlor as contracted. We have spoken to our lawyers and are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the former owners of EFM&S even though they are now domiciled in the Cayman Islands."

To which prosecutor nmewn says: "Don't bother. The mishandling, transfer, theft, tampering and/or destruction of government property is still a ten year felony. The simple fact it is admitted you entrusted that property to EFM&S LLC is all the evidence I need to proceed with the prosecution so, thanks I guess."

Chuck Todd: "This is an outrage!"

JRobby - Handful of Dust , Jun 20, 2017 6:28 AM

The deep state owns both sides of the aisle.

That is why the whole thing must be torn down and rebuilt. And it will happen again in the future.

March in DC July 4

Yog Soggoth - philipat , Jun 20, 2017 8:10 AM

Obstruction of justice. Totally illegal!

GUS100CORRINA - divingengineer , Jun 20, 2017 12:04 AM

FOIA Request On Susan Rice's Unmaskings Rejected Because "Records Were Moved To Obama Library"

My response: WHAT???????? I am without words!!!

Ace006 - GUS100CORRINA , Jun 20, 2017 12:44 AM

Let's get Susan Rice's records. I don't think she was president recently and probably doesn't have a presidential library.

takeaction - Anarchyteez , Jun 19, 2017 11:36 PM

Remember this....

"Most Transparent Presidency Ever..."

You have to see this....(Enjoy...Not Spam...Safe for Work)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c

[Jun 20, 2017] In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends

Notable quotes:
"... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
"... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
"... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie. ..."
"... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
"... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
"... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews. ..."
"... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war criminal and tyrant .

"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.

"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."

In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.

In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against Russian companies, namely oil and gas.

Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.

STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.

PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.

They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.

Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.

TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't.

PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.

The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.

See:

[Jun 20, 2017] Trump Torpedoes Europe's Far Right by Robert Hunziker

Jun 20, 2017 | dissidentvoice.org

/ June 20th, 2017

As far as Europe's far right is concerned, Trump is a loser.

He is the nemesis of an intensifying European far right movement that has suddenly turned sour. Like the Black Plague of mid-14th century Europe, whatever happens, stay away from him! Poll numbers as well as voting for far right candidates throughout Europe drop with a hair-trigger when candidates associate with Trump.

Conversely, Trump may be the best that ever happened to establishment policies, like neoliberalism. Unwittingly, he's pulling neoliberalism out of a very deep hole; i.e., a failure to perform for the public at large both economically and socially. As it happens, hopelessness describes neoliberalism's impact on much of the bourgeoisie and all of the proletariat, as modern-day society reverts to an awkward form of economic feudalism but without fancy titles. Still, the serf count remains about the same.

Back in the day, meaning 2016 and during the initial months of 2017, the far right in Europe gravitated to Trump's right side or hardnosed libertarianism, unaffectionately known as Los Destructo, under direction of Bannon, which leaves little or no room for those who voted for Trump in the first place. Remarkably, comatose bewildered American voters in November 2016 essentially bequeathed votes to reality TV flat screens nestled in their basement family rooms.

Did they waste votes?

Nowadays, but not in 2016, Europe's far right would likely say: "Yes, they wasted their votes."

Whereas, only a few short months ago on November 9, 2016:

Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist at the University of Georgia, says, 'Trump's win gives a narrative of success, of possibility, to far-right parties in Europe, because Trump won despite all the predictions. So they can say to people, 'You're not wasting your vote if you come out and vote for us. We will actually do much better than what everyone says.' 1

How quickly things change once reality exposes delusion. As of today throughout Europe Trump's burgeoning affliction is like an outbreak of small pox, stay away. The hard evidence is found in polling and voting data. Continent-wide anybody associated with Trump is standing in a deep pile of doo-doo. Proof: Since Trump won the White House, every major European election crushes far right candidates. The true reality of Trump has turned the world to the value of neoliberalism as a safety valve, warts and all.

For example, in France, Marine Le Pen's National Front only won 13% of the vote in the French legislative elections, a crushing defeat that seriously underperformed her prior standings in the polls. Without reservation, Trump mentioned Le Pen favorably.

More telling than Le Pen getting hammered so badly, Austria's liberal candidate Van der Bellen, a month after Trump won the presidency, in a revote for the presidency, beat the daylights out of far right Freedom Party's Norbert Hofer. Six months earlier the candidates were neck-in-neck with only 0.6% separating them. Hofer cited Trump as "inspirational." Hofer got creamed.

Not surprisingly, the Trump factor is AC/DC; it goes both ways, wide right or near left. For example, Germany's Chancellor Merkel is no fan of Trump. Ipso facto , Merkel is rising fast in the polls. In fact, her advisors refer to her newfound popularity as the "Trump Factor." Today, 64% of Germans are satisfied with Merkel's job. Thanks to Trump, she's the most popular politician in Germany.

Meanwhile, Germany's far-out right wing-nuts, known as Alternative for Germany, which sympathizes with Trump, has lost 50% in the polls since Trump's November election victory. If Alternative for Germany, that advocated shooting immigrants, do not follow the Trump bandwagon, then who's left?

Interestingly, the Trump affliction seemingly has no boundaries. For example, establishment neoliberals that show affection for Trump, like PM Theresa May of the UK, plummet in popularity, same as far right extremists. She was the first head of state to visit Trump and the only head of state seen holding hands with him while walking along the corridors of the White House. Her conservative party blew apart a commanding 17% lead in the polls, losing its majority in Parliament and deleveraging their influence at the very moment when strong leadership is required for Brexit negotiations.

Meanwhile, Dutch voters crushed the Netherlands far right leader Geert Wilders aka: #WeWillMakeOurCountriesGreatAgain, the Party for Freedom, who praised Trump's example as the second coming in Europe but dropping almost 50% in poll numbers after Trump's win.

"By mid-February, when the race in the Netherlands began, Trump had been in office for several weeks, and Dutch voters had gotten a chance to observe him as president. They didn't like what they saw." 2

Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight.com article "Donald Trump is Making Europe Liberal Again" carries a list of far right parties that have fallen since Trump was elected, no victories, thus providing strong empirical evidence that association with Trump is a kiss of death.

Fortunately for Trump, his constituency ends in America where cartoons reflect politics.

Postscript: NBC News – Vienna: Europe's Far-Right Enjoys Backing from Russia's Putin , d/d February 13, 2017:

While U.S. intelligence agencies investigate claims that Russia secretly hacked emails to help tip last year's elections in favor of Donald Trump, Russia's push to bolster far-right populist politicians in Europe has been far more blatant. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is working to empower Europe's far-right and Eurosceptic parties with offers of cooperation, loans, political cover and propaganda. Such love has not gone unrequited: European populists are answering back with fulsome praise for Russia, its foreign policy and its strongman leader.

If Russia blatantly, in the raw, offered "loans, political cover and propaganda" to Europe's far right, then what of America's far right?

  1. Eleanor Beardsley, "Trump's Election Gives Hope To Europe's Far Right", NPR, November 9, 2016. [ ↩ ]
  2. David A. Graham, "Is Trump Dragging Down the European Far-Right?" The Atlantic , March 16, 2017. [ ↩ ]

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Robert .

This article was posted on Tuesday, June 20th, 2017 at 4:29pm and is filed under Donald Trump , Elections , EU , Europe , France .

[Jun 20, 2017] Rex Tillerson Admits US Working Towards Regime Change In Iran by Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani

Notable quotes:
"... "Well our Iranian policy is under development," Tillerson replied. "It's not yet been delivered to the president, but I would tell you that we certainly recognize Iran's continued destabilizing presence in the region, their payment of foreign fighters, their export of militia forces in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, their support for Hezbollah. And we are taking action to respond to Iran's hegemony. Additional sanctions actions have been put in place against individuals and others." ..."
"... "We continually review the merits both from the standpoint of diplomatic but also international consequences of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization," he added. "As you know, we have designated the Quds [Force]. Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know." ..."
"... The Iranian government was quick to condemn Tillerson's remarks. On Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi called Tillerson's comments "interventionist, in gross violation of the compelling rules of international law, unacceptable and strongly condemned." ..."
"... "Since the 1950s, the United States tried to meddle in Iranian affairs by different strategies such as coup d'état, regime change, and military intervention," Qassemi said, referring to U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran , dubbed Operation AJAX by the CIA These efforts have all failed, Qassemi said, adding that the new U.S. government was "confused" and could be "easily manipulated by wrong information." ..."
"... This article was originally published by Think Progress , a project of the Center For American Progress Action Fund. ..."
Jun 16, 2017 | www.mintpressnews.com

Rex Tillerson Admits US Working Towards Regime Change In Iran Trump's foreign policy team is filled with hawks on Iran, but Tillerson is the first administration official to advocate for regime change in his official capacity.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1TNtFuSIzKA?rel=0&controls=0&showinfo=0

The new U.S. policy towards Iran includes regime change, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson was asked on Wednesday whether the United States supports regime change inside Iran. He replied in the affirmative, saying that U.S. policy is driven by relying on "elements inside of Iran" to bring about "peaceful transition of that government."

He made the comments in a hearing on the 2018 State Department budget before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) asked Tillerson about U.S. policy towards Iran, including whether the U.S. government would sanction the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and whether the U.S. supported "a philosophy of regime change."

"They are doing bad things throughout the world, on behalf of terrorism and destroying human rights of many people," Poe said, referring to the IRGC. "I'd like to know what the policy is of the U.S. toward Iran. Do we support the current regime? Do we support a philosophy of regime change, peaceful regime change? There are Iranians in exile all over the world. Some are here. And then there's Iranians in Iran who don't support the totalitarian state. So is the U.S. position to leave things as they are or set up a peaceful long-term regime change?"

"Well our Iranian policy is under development," Tillerson replied. "It's not yet been delivered to the president, but I would tell you that we certainly recognize Iran's continued destabilizing presence in the region, their payment of foreign fighters, their export of militia forces in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, their support for Hezbollah. And we are taking action to respond to Iran's hegemony. Additional sanctions actions have been put in place against individuals and others."

"We continually review the merits both from the standpoint of diplomatic but also international consequences of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization," he added. "As you know, we have designated the Quds [Force]. Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know."

Trump's foreign policy team is filled with hawks on Iran , but Tillerson is the first administration official to advocate for regime change in his official capacity.

The Iranian government was quick to condemn Tillerson's remarks. On Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi called Tillerson's comments "interventionist, in gross violation of the compelling rules of international law, unacceptable and strongly condemned."

"Since the 1950s, the United States tried to meddle in Iranian affairs by different strategies such as coup d'état, regime change, and military intervention," Qassemi said, referring to U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran , dubbed Operation AJAX by the CIA These efforts have all failed, Qassemi said, adding that the new U.S. government was "confused" and could be "easily manipulated by wrong information."

Tillerson's focus on nuclear weapons in his comments on Wednesday are notable, given that he has previously acknowledged that Iran is in full compliance with the Iranian nuclear agreement (as has the International Atomic Energy Agency ).

Last week, Iran suffered an attack claimed by the Islamic State that killed at least 17 people and injured dozens. The White House response implied that Iran deserved the attack. "We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times," the statement read. "We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."

The next day, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a vocal Trump supporter, praised the attack in Tehran and suggested that the United States should work with the Islamic State to counter Iran.

On Thursday, the Senate passed an Iran sanctions bill, despite former Secretary of State John Kerry's warning that new sanctions could threaten the Iranian nuclear agreement.

Related: Iran Braces For Renewed Offensive By ISIS And The CIA

This article was originally published by Think Progress , a project of the Center For American Progress Action Fund.
tapatio > tapatio

IRAN – REALITY

1) NO evidence, of any sort, has EVER been produced of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The production of industrial and medical isotopes also produces trace amounts of "weapons grade" material – quantities far too small for weapons production. NPT Commission inspectors have never found more than these trace amounts.

2) Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, has been screaming about an "Iranian Bomb in a year or two" FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. So far, he has accomplished nothing other than looking like a fool and using the AIPAC/Rothschild-Bilderberg cartel members to blackmail the United States Government.

3) Iran has NOT ATTACKED ANY COUNTRY IN 250 YEARS. Iran does provide support to Hamas (the ELECTED government of Gaza), Hezbollah (formed by the legitimate Lebanese government to resist an Israeli invasion of that country), Syria (the LEGITIMATE government of Syria fighting against the FOREIGN TERRORISTS attacking that country).

4) Israel can not attack Iran independently without the use of Israel's nuclear weapons. Israel has no transport for troops or equipment. If Israel used conventional missiles, Iran is a HUGE target, very difficult to attack. Israel is a tiny target – EASY to attack and Iran's conventional missile force is equal to Israel's. If Israel used nuclear weapons, the entire world would turn on Israel and the US could not protect it's Jewish masters.

5) If the US were to attack Iran, a 2011 Pentagon report stated that war with Iran would cost three to five times the US casualties of the Vietnam war and would destroy the US economy. That is IF Russia and China didn't aid Iran. In that case, either the US would be defeated conventionally or destroyed in a nuclear war.

6) There are hundreds of thousands of Christians, Buddhists and followers of other religions in Iran. Even almost ten thousand Jews (hated by Israel because they are a constant black eye for the Jews' state). These people all follow their own religions in COMPLETE FREEDOM. The ONLY restriction on their practice is that they may not preach their faith in public. Conversion back and forth between religions, is not uncommon.

7) Homosxxuality is as common in the Middle East, Including Iran, as in the rest of the world. The primary difference in Muslim countries is that open sxxual displays are strongly frowned on in their culture – especially so for gays. It's the same in Nebraska or Mississippi. Only, the disapproval is official for Muslims. It's a punishable offence for a married hetro couple to kiss in public. Gays who demand what they see as "Gay Rights" on TV are in grave danger.

8) In Iran there is almost no homelessness, No Iranian child goes to bed hungry. Iranian health care is excellent and FREE. Iranian education is excellent and FREE. Severe poverty almost does not exist in Iran. SAD THAT AMERICANS CAN'T SAY THE SAME ABOUT THE UNITED STATES.

Rumpled

First, Iran should have never nationalized their oil patch. Second, Iran should have never democratically elected Mossaddegh. Third, Iran should have never overthrown the puppet thug Pahlavi family. /s

ORAXX

Regime change, having such a spellbinding record of failure where ever we've tried it, is something that appeals to our amateur President, and Secretary of State. /s

[Jun 20, 2017] The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out an Electoral College win. ..."
May 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate

Where is Stanley Kubrick when we need him? If he hadn't died in 1999, he would be the perfect director to transform today's hysteria over Russia into a theater-of-the-absurd movie reprising his Cold War classic, "Dr. Strangelove," which savagely satirized the madness of nuclear brinksmanship and the crazed ideology behind it.

A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

To prove my point, The Washington Post on Thursday published a lengthy story entitled in the print editions "Alarm at Russian in White House" about a Russian photographer who was allowed into the Oval Office to photograph President Trump's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The Post cited complaints from former U.S. intelligence officials who criticized the presence of the Russian photographer as "a potential security breach" because of "the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics."

To bolster this alarm, the Post cited a Twitter comment from President Obama's last deputy CIA director, David S. Cohen, stating "No, it was not" a sound decision to admit the Russian photographer who also works for the Russian news agency, Tass, which published the photo.

One could picture Boris and Natasha, the evil spies in the Bullwinkle cartoons, disguised as photographers slipping listening devices between the cushions of the sofas.

Or we could hear how Russians are again threatening to "impurify all of our precious bodily fluids," as "Dr. Strangelove" character, Gen. Jack D. Ripper, warned us in the 1964 movie.

Watching that brilliant dark comedy again might actually be a good idea to remind us how crazy Americans can get when they're pumped up with anti-Russian propaganda, as is happening again now.

Taking Down Trump

I realize that many Democrats, liberals and progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking him down, even if that plays into the hands of the neoconservatives and other warmongers. Many people who detest Trump view Russia-gate as the most likely path to achieve Trump's impeachment, so this desirable end justifies whatever means.

Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.

Some people have told me that they even believe that it is the responsibility of the major news media, the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and members of Congress to engage in a "soft coup" against Trump – also known as a "constitutional coup" or "deep state coup" – for the "good of the country."

The argument is that it sometimes falls to these Establishment institutions to "correct" a mistake made by the American voters, in this case, the election of a largely unqualified individual as U.S. president. It is even viewed by some anti-Trump activists as a responsibility of "responsible" journalists, government officials and others to play this "guardian" role, to not simply "resist" Trump but to remove him.

But The New York Times and The Washington Post, in particular, have made it clear that they view Trump as a clear and present danger to the American system and thus have cast aside any pretense of neutrality.

The Times justifies its open hostility to the President as part of its duty to protect "the truth"; the Post has adopted a slogan aimed at Trump, "Democracy Dies in Darkness." In other words, America's two most influential political newspapers are effectively pushing for a "soft coup" under the guise of defending "democracy" and "truth."

But the obvious problem with a "soft coup" is that America's democratic process, as imperfect as it has been and still is, has held this diverse country together since 1788 with the notable exception of the Civil War.

If Americans believe that the Washington elites are removing an elected president – even one as buffoonish as Donald Trump – it could tear apart the fabric of national unity, which is already under extraordinary stress from intense partisanship.

That means that the "soft coup" would have to be carried out under the guise of a serious investigation into something grave enough to justify the President's removal, a removal that could be accomplished by congressional impeachment, his forced resignation, or the application of Twenty-fifth Amendment, which allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to judge a President incapable of continuing in office (although that could require two-thirds votes by both houses of Congress if the President fights the maneuver).

A Big Enough 'Scandal'

That is where Russia-gate comes in. The gauzy allegation that Trump and/or his advisers somehow colluded with Russian intelligence officials to rig the 2016 election would probably clear the threshold for an extreme action like removing a President.

And, given the determination of many key figures in the Establishment to get rid of Trump, it should come as no surprise that no one seems to care that no actual government-verified evidence has been revealed publicly to support any of the Russia-gate allegations.

There's not even any public evidence from U.S. government agencies that Russia did "meddle" in the 2016 election or – even if Russia did slip Democratic emails to WikiLeaks (which WikiLeaks denies) – there has been zero evidence that the scheme resulted from collusion with Trump's campaign.

The FBI has been investigating these suspicions for at least nine months, even reportedly securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an American whom Trump briefly claimed as a foreign policy adviser when Trump was under fire for not having any foreign policy advisers.

One of Page's alleged offenses was that he gave a speech to an academic conference in Moscow in July 2016 that was mildly critical of how the U.S. treated countries from the former Soviet Union. He also once lived in Russia and met with a Russian diplomat who – apparently unbeknownst to Page – had been identified by the U.S. government as a Russian intelligence officer.

It appears that is enough, in these days of our New McCarthyism , to get an American put under a powerful counter-intelligence investigation.

The FBI and the Department of Justice also reportedly are including as part of the Russia-gate investigation Trump's stupid campaign joke calling on the Russians to help find the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary Clinton erased from the home server that she used while Secretary of State.

On July 27, 2016, Trump said, apparently in jest, "I will tell you this, Russia: if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

The comment fit with Trump's puckish, provocative and often tasteless sense of humor, but was seized on by Democrats as if it were a serious suggestion – as if anyone would use a press conference to seriously urge something like that. But it now appears that the FBI is grabbing at any straw that might support its investigation.

The (U.K.) Guardian reported this week that "Senior DoJ officials have declined to release the documents [about Trump's comment] on grounds that such disclosure could 'interfere with enforcement proceedings'. In a filing to a federal court in Washington DC, the DoJ states that 'because of the existence of an active, ongoing investigation, the FBI anticipates that it will withhold all records'.

"The statement suggests that Trump's provocative comment last July is being seen by the FBI as relevant to its own ongoing investigation."

The NYT's Accusations

On Friday, in the wake of Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey and the President's characterization of Russia-gate as "a total hoax," The New York Times reprised what it called "The Trump-Russia Nexus" in a lead editorial trying to make the case of some fire behind the smoke.

Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

Though the Times acknowledges that there are "many unknowns" in Russia-gate and the Times can't seem to find any evidence of collusion, such as slipping a Russian data stick to WikiLeaks, the Times nevertheless treats a host of Trump advisers and family members as traitors because they've had some association with Russian officials, Russian businesses or Russian allies.

Regarding Carter Page, the Times wrote: "American officials believe that Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, had contacts with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign. He also gave a pro-Russia speech in Moscow in July 2016. Mr. Page was once employed by Merrill Lynch's Moscow office, where he worked with Gazprom, a government-owned giant."

You might want to let some of those words sink in, especially the part about Page giving "a pro-Russia speech in Moscow," which has been cited as one of the principal reasons for Page and his communications being targeted under a FISA warrant.

I've actually read Page's speech and to call it "pro-Russia" is a wild exaggeration. It was a largely academic treatise that faulted the West's post-Cold War treatment of the nations formed from the old Soviet Union, saying the rush to a free-market system led to some negative consequences, such as the spread of corruption.

But even if the speech were "pro-Russia," doesn't The New York Times respect the quaint American notion of free speech? Apparently not. If your carefully crafted words can be twisted into something called "pro-Russia," the Times seems to think it's okay to have the National Security Agency bug your phones and read your emails.

The Ukraine Case

Another Times' target was veteran political adviser Paul Manafort, who is accused of working as "a consultant for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine and for Ukraine's former president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was backed by the Kremlin."

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

Left out of that Times formulation is the fact that the Ukrainian political party, which had strong backing from ethnic Russian Ukrainians - not just Russia– competed in a democratic process and that Yanukovych won an election that was recognized by international observers as free and fair.

Yanukovych was then ousted in February 2014 in a violent putsch that was backed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. The putsch, which was spearheaded by right-wing nationalists and even neo-Nazis, touched off Ukraine's civil war and the secession of Crimea, the key events in the escalation of today's New Cold War between NATO and Russia.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Though I'm no fan of U.S. political hired-guns selling their services in foreign elections, there was nothing illegal or even unusual about Manafort advising a Ukrainian political party. What arguably was much more offensive was the U.S. support for an unconstitutional coup that removed Yanukovych even after he agreed to a European plan for early elections so he could be voted out of office peacefully.

But the Times, the Post and virtually the entire Western mainstream media sided with the Ukrainian coup-makers and hailed Yanukovych's overthrow. That attitude has become such a groupthink that the Times has banished the thought that there was a coup .

Still, the larger political problem confronting the United States is that the neoconservatives and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, now control nearly all the levers of U.S. foreign policy. That means they can essentially dictate how events around the world will be perceived by most Americans.

The neocons and the liberal hawks also want to continue their open-ended wars in the Middle East by arranging the commitment of additional U.S. military forces to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – and perhaps a new confrontation with Iran.

Early in Obama's second term, it became clear to the neocons that Russia was becoming the chief obstacles to their plans because President Barack Obama was working closely with President Vladimir Putin on a variety of projects that undermined neocon hopes for more war.

Particularly, Putin helped Obama secure an agreement from Syria to surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles in 2013 and to get Iran to accept tight constraints on its nuclear program in 2014. In both cases, the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks were lusting for war.

Immediately after the Syria chemical-weapons deal in September 2013, key U.S. neocons began focusing on Ukraine as what National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman called "the biggest prize" and a first step toward unseating Putin in Moscow.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.

Gershman's grant-giving NED stepped up its operations inside Ukraine while Assistant Secretary Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, began pushing for regime change in Kiev (along with other neocons, including Sen. John McCain).

The Ukraine coup in 2014 drove a geopolitical wedge between Obama and Putin, since the Russian president couldn't just stand by when a virulently anti-Russian regime took power violently in Ukraine, which was the well-worn route for invasions into Russia and housed Russia's Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol in Crimea.

Rather than defend the valuable cooperation provided by Putin, Obama went with the political flow and joined in the Russia-bashing as key neocons raised their sights and put Putin in the crosshairs .

An Unexpected Obstacle

For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out an Electoral College win.

Perhaps Trump could have diffused some of the hostility toward him but his narcissistic personality stopped him from extending an olive branch to the tens of millions of Americans who opposed him. He further demonstrated his political incompetence by wasting his first days in office making ridiculous claims about the size of his inaugural crowds and disputing the fact that he had lost the popular vote.

Widespread public disgust over his behavior contributed to the determination of many Americans to "resist" his presidency at all junctures and at all costs.

Peter Sellers playing Dr. Strangelove as he struggles to control his right arm from making a Nazi salute.

Russia-gate, the hazy suggestion that Putin put Trump in the White House and that Trump is a Putin "puppet" (as Clinton claimed), became the principal weapon to use in destroying Trump's presidency.

However, besides the risks to U.S. stability that would come from an Establishment-driven "soft coup," there is the additional danger of ratcheting up tensions so high with nuclear-armed Russia that this extreme Russia-bashing takes on a life – or arguably many, many deaths – of its own.

Which is why America now might need a piercing satire of today's Russia-phobia or at least a revival of the Cold War classic, "Dr. Strangelove," subtitled "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " Watergate Redux or 'Deep State' Coup ."]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Jun 20, 2017] Israel had far more involvement in the US election than Russia

Jun 20, 2017 | nation.foxnews.com
The audience member explained that as Colbert pressed Oscar winner Stone - who was promoting his new Vladimir Putin Showtime series, "The Putin Interviews" - on his apparent sympathy for the Russian president in spite of claims about Russian interference in the US election, Stone, at a disadvantage, tried to shift the talk to Israel.

The source said they "watched from behind [their] hands" as Stone said words to the effect of: "Israel had far more involvement in the US election than Russia."

The "Platoon" director further challenged Colbert by saying, "Why don't you ask me about that?" - but we're told that the host shot back, "I'll ask you about that when you make a documentary about Israel!"

[Jun 20, 2017] Israels Dirty Little Secret

Notable quotes:
"... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
"... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
Jun 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?"

Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby, most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt "educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into AIPAC's empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert operations running in the U.S. at that time.

Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish power vis-ŕ-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president – I don't care who he is – stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."

He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?"

It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017 Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly, there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything good for the American people.

During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby. One bill might actually have been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors, most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no" to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voting "no."

And there's more to S.722 than Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond."

ORDER IT NOW

The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced western media.

And there's more. A bill has surfaced in the House of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult" with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently enjoys.

Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully feeds off of.

And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously." The bill requires the State Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don't play ball, there is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.

There is also a Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.

And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution celebrating the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has described himself as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.

I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated." There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it. He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and shouted at him for being a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim is being coordinated with Washington.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.

[Jun 20, 2017] Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a rabbit hole where no crime actually has been committed but people's lives are ruined

Jun 20, 2017 | www.msn.com
...Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a rabbit hole where no crime actually has been committed but people's lives are ruined.

Gingrich said on "This Week" Trump has "a compulsion to counterattack and is very pugnacious" even though that sometimes works to his detriment.

Gingrich said prosecutors may not find evidence of obstruction against Trump, "but maybe there is going to be perjury. And maybe there will be – I mean, you go down the list and we have been here before. We watched Comey [when he was deputy attorney general] appoint [Chicago U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the godfather to Comey's children and Fitzgerald knew there was no crime."

(Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leaking of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband Joseph C. Wilson's statements about whether Saddam Hussein obtained uranium from Niger, contradicting the Bush administration. The investigation resulted in Lewis "Scooter" Libby pleading guilty to lying to investigators.)

Gingrich said if there is going to be an investigation into Russian influence, investigators also should look into a speech given by former President Bill Clinton for which he was paid $500,000 and the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. who is a registered agent for a Russian bank.

"I'm happy to look at Russia's relationship. I actually think it would be healthy to have congressional hearings on foreign influence peddling in the U.S. way beyond the Russians. I think that's important for the future of our democracy," Gingrich said.

"No one, and Comey himself said this in his last testimony, no one has suggested that Donald Trump had anything to do with colluding with the Russians. There's not a bit of evidence he did."

Gingrich said hires by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller indicate he's politicizing the investigation and Comey also should be investigated, a sentiment echoed by Trump attorney Jay Sekulow on CNN's " State of the Union ."

[Jun 20, 2017] Those barbaric Russkies don't have Free Speech Pens for protestors like we have here in the Civilized West

Notable quotes:
"... At this point, I simply ignore the American media. I can't think of a single American news source that is unbiased or fair. So, I don't buy their papers, I don't listen to radio, I don't watch TV news. And I'm better informed that way. And, as an extra bonus, I get to laugh everytime I see them admit that their ratings and circulation continues to drop. ..."
"... A shooter in DC opened fire on a group of Congressional Republlicans. What you won't hear. You won't hear any discussion about how Hillary and the Democrats have divided this country for their own gain. Historically, a defeated Presidential candidate always tried to at least appear to unify the country. One key case in recent memory, Al Gore didn't try to lead a revolution against Dubya after losing the 2000 election 5-4. ..."
"... Hillary hasn't done this. She's been as mean, nasty and viscious as she was during the campaign, which basically consisted of calling Trump a fascist and a racist and telling anyone who dared to vote against her that they were deploreable. And of course, the Russia nonsense started during the campaign, when she had to distract attention from the fact that the Democrat primary process was a corrupt, rigged affair where the people never had a chance. So, we knew then that Hillary was willing to push the world closer to nuclear war for her own personal gain. ..."
"... Slightly off-topic, but it does relate to the constant "fake-news" claim that the USA is a democracy and its constant wars, killings, torture and detentions are in the name of "democracy". ..."
"... Paul Street (a good source for commentary) wrote. "I asked my "social media" correspondents if this lobbyist was actually playing on the Republican Congressional baseball team. Someone wrote back with a clever line: "Probably was the manager." ..."
Jun 20, 2017 | thesaker.is
Anonymous on June 13, 2017 · at 10:17 pm UTC

This incident is priceless in capturing how pathetically debased the American and European Free Press(TM) are when it comes to scrounging up any contrived bit of propaganda fodder so as to promote their colored coup er revolution attempts in Russia (and elsewhere)–even if it means "mistaking" a World War 2 reenactment for anti-protest barricades. Oops!

Those barbaric Russkies don't have Free Speech Pens for protestors like we have here in the Civilized West!

Seriously though, it's important to expose this media disinformation each and every time that they occur so as to call out these purveyors of fake news.

Granted, documenting and exposing these Free Press frauds is a full-time job.

But political blood libels should never go unchallenged.

In fact, the United States and Europeans not only are peddlers of Fake News. They promote even greater deceptions in the form of their Fake Democracy, Fake Freedom, and Fake "Western Civilization" itself.

Media Disinformation on Monday Russian Street Protests
https://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2017/06/media-disinformation-on-monday-russian.html

FAKE NEWS WEEK: A Guide to Mainstream Media 'Fake News' War Propaganda
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/02/14/fake-news-week-a-guide-to-mainstream-media-fake-news-war-propaganda/

Syria 'Hero Boy' Video Revealed to be Government Propaganda
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/syria-hero-boy-video-revealed-to-be-government-propaganda/

Who is Behind "Fake News"? Mainstream Media Use Fake Videos and Images
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-fake-news-mainstream-media-use-fake-videos-and-images/5557580

Verami on June 13, 2017 , · at 10:34 pm UTC

Wow, what a coincidence.
Both Aleksei Venediktov and Vladimir Kozlovskii are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
The Saker on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:41 am UTC
LOL!!!
yeah, you are right.
that is undeniable
Mad as Hell on June 13, 2017 , · at 10:47 pm UTC
I know its off track but I just had to share this :

http://www.timesofisrael.com/haley-slams-un-human-rights-report-for-singling-out-israel/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nikki-haley-un-human-rights-council-anti-israel-bias-ambassador-arab-countries-saudi-arabia-a7775381.html

https://www.google.com.jm/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4806801/nikki-haley-human-rights-council-israel/%3Fsource%3Ddam

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/israel-middle-east/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/the-un-bullies-israel-u-s-ambassador-tells-benjamin-netanyahu-in-jerusalem

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/06/531787128/ambassador-nikki-haley-accuses-u-n-human-rights-council-of-bashing-israel

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230763

One thing for certain, as Israel's representative at the UN, no one can honestly say that Ms. Haley is not doing her job.

If only other countries could have such dedicated representatives looking out for the interests of their respective countries.

Talk about dedication, is there anything comparable out there?

RB on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:04 am UTC
With all due respect. Recreating WWII barricades with hedgehogs to celebrate a national holiday other than the V-Day is a pretty dumb idea if you ask me.
James Lake on June 14, 2017 , · at 1:22 am UTC
To RB,
The festival was called the Times and Epochs festival and it wasn't just world war 2

There were reenactments from vast periods of Russian history – Crimean war, Viking times, etc

It was Russia Day and this was showing different events in history over time.

It is a family day and many bring their children to the events

Tomsen on June 16, 2017 , · at 3:57 pm UTC
The Russians are just trying to make their people well prepared in these very sensitive years. Are you against that? Most Americans and Western liberals would strongly oppose it. "Stay defenseless Russia"!
Taras77 on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:37 am UTC
Thanks, Saker-excellent commentary! Link here to a similar article with extimates of numbers of "protesters" and the extent of support to navalny (~none):

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/392011-navalny-unsanctioned-protest-western-media/

S-400 on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:38 am UTC
Isnt that weasel Alexei Venediktov the same guy Putin had to put in his place somevyears back, for using his taxpayer -funded radio show to talk shit about Russia. Its some where on Youtube, where Putin told him to his face to stop talking bullshit and taking the Russian people for fools.
Ingrid on June 14, 2017 , · at 5:41 am UTC
You mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl90fme0XEc
BRF on June 14, 2017 , · at 1:03 am UTC
Am I to believe that Russians are happy with the status quo where the Russian oligarchy owns more of Russian wealth and assets than their western counterparts do in their own bailiwick? Perhaps the threats from the west have unified the Russian people behind their government but they are getting screwed over just as bad or worse as western peoples. Here is our common ground.
Scott on June 14, 2017 , · at 2:35 am UTC
BRF,

When was the last time you heard about the "Russian mafia"? It seems to disappear without a trace. The "Russian oligarchs" have followed, being replaced by joined ownership by the state and domestic and foreign investors.

One of the most powerful appeal of the Putin's government, if you know what I mean.

The following are just two quotations:

from a pro-Russia journalist

Vladimir Yevtushenkov's asset-holding company Sistema has not inspired investor confidence since September of 2014. That was when Yevtushenkov was arrested in Moscow and charged with fraud and money-laundering in connexion with Sistema's takeover of Bashneft, a Volga region oil producer. That year, Sistema's market capitalization on the London Stock Exchange dropped from $15.5 billion to $1.2 billion, setting a new record for haircuts among Russia's oligarchs. Yevtushenkov's incarceration lasted eight weeks in home confinement, during which he gave up Bashneft and accepted a number of other terms from Russian prosecutors and their superiors.

Sistema's takeover of the Bashneft oil company was the trigger for Yevtushenkov's encounter with Russia's Prosecutor-General. Once he had surrendered Bashneft to Rosneft, litigation began in civil courts.

http://johnhelmer.net/vladimir-yevtushenkov-plays-monopoly-makes-friends-with-president-jacob-zuma-of-south-africa-for-a-50-billion-chance-and-gets-out-of-jail/#more-17712

and from a "critic of Russia"

The US and European sanctions against Russia have been a colossal miscalculation because they give Russians a rationale for the misery that has come, not only with rouble devaluation and the loss of oil and gas export income, but also from the inequality inflicted by the oligarch system which replaced the communist one. In cutting the Russian oligarchs and state banks off from the international capital they regularly stole and converted into offshore assets, the sanctions have forced self-sufficiency on a reluctant Kremlin, and neutralized, for the time being, the most powerful Russian lobby in favour of Americanization and - what amounted to the same thing, globalization. What's left of the fraud and conversion lobby in Moscow – Anatoly Chubais, Alexei Kudrin, Alexei Ulyukaev – is now under one form of house arrest or another.

Whereas the first assault on Russia by western journalists, a quarter of a century ago, was the sign of the collapse of Russian resistance, this time it's the reverse – the signs of US and Anglo-European collapse, and Russian revival. We're going to have to live a long time to figure out which side turns out to be civilized, which barbarian. Uncertainty like this used to be called the Dark Ages.
http://russia-insider.com/en/empires-last-gasp-anglo-american-journalism-chokes-its-own-digital-model/ri17928

Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 3:21 am UTC
Scott:

being replaced by joined ownership by the state and domestic and foreign investors. [emphasis added by myself]

Russians would be wise to re-think foreign investment. They should limit the percentage foreigners can hold of a certain company. Additionally they should make sure that those laws can't be skirted as is the case with the radio station of Mr. Venediktov. Finally, they should make sure that for example a foreign investor can't hold the maximum share of each corporation that's open to foreign money (otherwise foreigners might have some kind of "monopoly" in certain industries). Be aware: foreign investment always comes with an outflow of money. Decision making (planning expansion or reducing of the work force) also should be in the hands of locals – foreign influence should be limited.

Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:08 am UTC
At this point, I simply ignore the American media. I can't think of a single American news source that is unbiased or fair. So, I don't buy their papers, I don't listen to radio, I don't watch TV news. And I'm better informed that way. And, as an extra bonus, I get to laugh everytime I see them admit that their ratings and circulation continues to drop.

And I still find it fascinating that the last election split on this issue. Polls said Trump voters almost uniformly mistrusted the media. The last election was between the people who don't trust the media and the people who read the NYT and lap up CNN. Guess what . the people who don't trust the media won. They are now the majority in the US. And since the BBC tells everyone to hate Corbyn and vote to Remain in the EU, it seems that this is also true in the UK.

There's an easy answer to this nonsense .. TURN THEM OFF!

juliania on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:06 pm UTC
You have hit upon a most important insight, which of course the saturation media will not report on itself – that folk in the US have demonstrated very clearly how many simply were not listening or viewing any longer during and after the campaigns and elections. Indeed they were reading the present evolvement of samizdat, which has happened on the internet, such as Saker here.

I'm sure with the original samizdat there were attempts by the USSR powers that be to infiltrate the process – but such attempts would have been clearly visible to the Russians looking for legitimate streams of information, simply in the wooden way in which they were presented. For when such powers take over the stream of creativity as propaganda for the regime, it becomes wooden – there's something our Creator has given us that can't be suppressed – the ability to think for our selves.

Fewer and fewer now can stomach the genetic modifications that pass for news in mainstream press in the US. And there are now new trolls in the internet chat rooms – they stand out like the misfits they are, dutifully quoting this or that tv newsperson most of us don't even waste time on any longer. So, we know them, and we discount their attempts to rewrite history.

What a delightful festival for the Russians! See, for them it is as if they restore to themselves the suppressed ability to critique openly the ills and delights of the past – something their ancestors might have been thrown in a monastic prison for daring to comment upon. It's a glorious expression of freedom to show – this is what we were: these were our shining moments, we the people, and this was what we had to endure, which only the brave bore witness to, and we honor them by bringing our children to learn of past sacrifices and past triumphs.

And of course, the western press cannot explain this. For there, in the grace of God, go we. Some time in the future, our young people will be out on the streets re-enacting our own struggles to the turn of the century and beyond, when we preferred to elect an aging pompous clown who has no political experience rather than an aging warweary female – the worst and best/worst that could be manipulated into the spotlight. It will be a different festival, for sure, not as colorful perhaps, though the redcoats will be there, Jefferson, Lincoln and Martin Luther King I wish I could be around to see it. Maybe God will give us a special dispensation on that day, wake us up so we can have a look as generations to come rejoice. Yes, Russians – you are our future; be very proud!

Friend on June 14, 2017 , · at 12:41 pm UTC
Beautifully said.
Western Media on June 14, 2017 , · at 3:35 am UTC
That's right, you can't beat us! We are the end of history! We are the alpha and omega! We are the thousand-year new world order! We are his master's voice! We are the consensus of the international community! We are the march of progress! And we are not amused!
Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 7:28 pm UTC
In other words, basically the same thing the big wooly mammoth shouted while sinking into the tar pit.
Ann on June 14, 2017 , · at 5:02 am UTC
that smartass guy Aleksei was in a video where Putin talked to him – I remember his face – what a royal pain in the ass that guy is – I wonder if there is a parallel in the States to someone like him –

I guess though that the States is really 'like him' and Putin is the lone warrior doing the true journalism –

Oscar on June 14, 2017 , · at 6:06 am UTC
I picked up this from Wikipedia about the origins of this guy (Venediktkov) "His mother Eleonora Abramovna Dykhovichnaya was a doctor of Jewish origin" Not much to talk about.
Lokus on June 14, 2017 , · at 7:35 am UTC
I think, the fall of Putin is close.
Young, liberal Russia demands western way of life, freedoms, good erotic style.

Young, liberal Russia is eager to deliver Russian natural resources to western companies in exchange for visa free travel. Or for one Trump's smile.

_smr on June 14, 2017 , · at 8:18 am UTC
No surprises here.

By the way of deception is Zion's only way. Deception in the sense of fiction. All the stories they have told us from Moses to Charlie Hebdo, from Solomon's Temple to the Moon Landing, from Manna to the US $ – it is all invented, fabricated, scripted, coded, repeated, made into a Shakespeare play, then into a Hollywood movie, then finally ends up as exhibit 666 in a Holocaust museum near your local Starbucks and the freak show never ends.

Maybe it will end one day.

The recent streak of unforced errors by Zion is unprecedented. Since about the time when Crimea was liberated from Zion's Ukr-Nazis, everything Zion touched has gone haywire. It's quite the sight. What idiots!

_smr on June 14, 2017 , · at 9:15 am UTC
Hint: Laughable stunts of this sort can only work when an all-out Zionstream media psyop is reinforced by Zion agents embedded in key positions of the local power structure. Names that come to mind: Lenin, Merkel, Robespierre

Under the watch of Putin, such a situation is not given in Russia. Therefore, without knowing any details of the above farce, we confidently can declare it a failure at onset.

I add it to the recently fast-growing list of unforced errors of Zion.

Greg Bacon on June 14, 2017 , · at 11:03 am UTC
Americans are watching their nation's infrastructure fall apart, because we spend a lot of money on fighting endless MENA wars for Wall Street and Israel, the only ones really benefiting from this carnage–plus the defense contractors.

Our medical costs are going sky-high, thanks to Obama Care, but no one in the press asks questions about our nation's roads, bridges and outdated nuclear plants, since they're too busy screaming about Russia or Putin or Assad.

One GOOD thing about Trump's election is that the MSM was forced to go full Banzai mode to offset the horror they felt from not having the psycho Hillary in the WH, and in doing so, fully exposed themselves as LIARS and Propaganda spinners.

Edward on June 14, 2017 , · at 2:10 pm UTC
Another ridiculous episode in American propaganda was the press meltdown when Chavez came to power in Venezuela. After decades of silence about the crimes of the CIA-backed regimes in South America all of a sudden the press discover human rights problems in Venezuela because the government of that oil rich country opposes neo-liberal economic policies. Chazev wanted to redistribute wealth. This tells you what the press does and does not consider a crime.
Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 7:26 pm UTC
Today's Fake News to watch ..

A shooter in DC opened fire on a group of Congressional Republlicans. What you won't hear. You won't hear any discussion about how Hillary and the Democrats have divided this country for their own gain. Historically, a defeated Presidential candidate always tried to at least appear to unify the country. One key case in recent memory, Al Gore didn't try to lead a revolution against Dubya after losing the 2000 election 5-4.

Hillary hasn't done this. She's been as mean, nasty and viscious as she was during the campaign, which basically consisted of calling Trump a fascist and a racist and telling anyone who dared to vote against her that they were deploreable. And of course, the Russia nonsense started during the campaign, when she had to distract attention from the fact that the Democrat primary process was a corrupt, rigged affair where the people never had a chance. So, we knew then that Hillary was willing to push the world closer to nuclear war for her own personal gain.

Since the election, its gotten even worse. At this point, Hillary has nothing to gain, at least not politically. I'm sure there's a lucrative book deal in her future. But, a two-time loser like Hillary will never become President. Even the Democrats aren't that stupid to even try.

But still, she's done everything she can to divide the country. Apparently just out of spite. And the shooting today seems to flow directly from that. When you stir up hatred and violence like Hillary and the Democrats have done, it becomes highly likely that some less than stable person will take it way, way, way too far.

Thanks Hillary!

Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 3:36 am UTC
Anonymous:

Since the election, its gotten even worse. At this point, Hillary has nothing to gain, at least not politically. I'm sure there's a lucrative book deal in her future.

A book deal?!? How greedy can one "power couple" be? They cashed in big time with their speeches (more than a hundred million). If you add the money (over a billion) of the Clinton foundation, then you've got billionaires. They would need centuries to spend all that money if they were living a modest lifestyle.

Anonymous on June 16, 2017 , · at 6:06 pm UTC
Amazing what a "lifetime of public service" has gotten them. The poor kid from hope Arkansas is now a billionaire. Yep, that's "public service."

Just what is Hillary fighting for at this point? If she thinks she can still be President, she'd delusional. For on thing her health doesn't seem likely to hold out long enough to make another run in her mid-70's. And in America, previous losers are almost never later elected. Richard Nixon in '68 after losing to Kennedy in '60 is the only exceptin I can think of. And how'd that turn out?

So, none of this is about Hillary's political future. And Bill couldn't be elected National Dog Catcher at this point. So, why is Hillary working so very hard to divide and destroy America? Given that millions of Russian money flowed to the Clinton Foundation, perhaps its Hillary who's the secret Russian agent?

Anonymous on June 14, 2017 , · at 10:28 pm UTC
"I feel sincerely sorry for the western reporters in Russia: their bosses are demanding signs of protests, of violence,"

Shades of the creator of 'Yellow Journalism', WIlliam Randolph Hearst who, after receiving a cable from his photographer in Cuba saying "there will be no war," cabled back: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:30 am UTC
Interesting news from Donbass.

It seems that earlier this year, all 12 members of a group of Canadian military trainers were killed by Novorossian forces on the frontline in east Ukraine. They were mistaken for a Ukraine intelligence group. Officially the Canadians were supposed to be based in west Ukraine, training the neo-Nazis (ahem regular good ole' Ukrainian military), so a batch of them getting terminated in east Ukraine proved

Anonymous on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:30 am UTC
Interesting news from Donbass.

It seems that earlier this year, all 12 members of a group of Canadian military trainers were killed by Novorossian forces on the frontline in east Ukraine. They were mistaken for a Ukraine intelligence group. Officially the Canadians were supposed to be based in west Ukraine, training the neo-Nazis (ahem regular good ole' Ukrainian military), so a batch of them getting terminated in east Ukraine proved to be embarassing. In response, the Canadian regime removed restrictions on where Canadian troops could be based, as Trudeau "did not like having to tell the families of the dead their sons died in a classified NATO operation. These measures are designed to give the military the room to do their job, as they wish."

So there you have it. The most important thing is not to cause upset to Trudeau.

http://novorossia.today/dozen-canadian-soldiers-killed-donbass-trudeau-wants-come-home-flag-draped-caskets-mission-now-extends-ukraine/

S113 on June 15, 2017 , · at 2:24 pm UTC
Some questionable facts in this report – but Fort Russ reported a few months back that Canadian mercenaries were seen near the line of contact. Trudeau and Canadian Armed Forces are not using mercenaries in Ukraine. Quite possibly, someone hired their own personal 'gang of thugs' from Garda Security:

"Canada's Blackwater: the world's largest privately held security firm"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/garda-canadas-blackwater-the-worlds-largest-privately-held-security-firm/5519365

Yk on June 15, 2017 , · at 9:24 pm UTC
Lol I really enjoy reading this as usual. The humour in the last paragraph made my day. Thanks Saker as always
DannyO on June 16, 2017 , · at 4:51 am UTC
So all the protestors were going to be driving miniature tanks up against the miniature anti tank barricades? I guess most of those protestors would be shriners driving clown tanks and wearing fez hats.
Welcome to the world of hipster presstitutes who have absolutely no clue.
Anonymous on June 16, 2017 , · at 5:58 pm UTC
Slightly off-topic, but it does relate to the constant "fake-news" claim that the USA is a democracy and its constant wars, killings, torture and detentions are in the name of "democracy".

A group of Congressional members and staffers gather for a baseball practice to prepare for an annual charity game. A madman opens fire. Among those seriously injured is a lobbyist for Tyson Foods.

That says so much about the USA and the US Congress. That members and staffers don't even hold a baseball practice without a lobbyist being present. That lobbyists are so integrated and embedded in the US Congress that a shooting at a group of members and staffers hits a lobbyist who's a part of the group.

Paul Street (a good source for commentary) wrote. "I asked my "social media" correspondents if this lobbyist was actually playing on the Republican Congressional baseball team. Someone wrote back with a clever line: "Probably was the manager."

Mike K. on June 19, 2017 , · at 6:56 pm UTC
The author of the Politico piece http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/how-russia-targets-the-us-military-215247

is a Zionist Jew who has written, gleefully, about the 'Death of the W.A.S.P.' Venediktov is as well. Nasha Gessen, Cathy Young The NYT and CNN chief propagandists: the very highly disproportionate number of Jews who are the authors of anti-Putin pieces in the US, UK, and France, and likely elsewhere is remarkae in two ways:

1) Given the predominant Jewish role in Bolshevik massacres and torture of ethnic Russians (and Jewish role in stealing much of Russia's wealth under/after Yeltsin;

2) But mostly: given the fact it is absolutely a forbidden topic, even as it is Jewish neocons in the US who are a major, if not necessarily predominant force in Washington think tanks, lobbies and media.

The number of times I find that the author of dishonest anti-Russian warmongering is Jewish is absolutely stunning.

I do not believe for one moment it has to do with human rights or anything but what they deem is good for Jews as a Global Shadow Empire.

I may be wrong, however.

[Jun 19, 2017] George Washington: Special Prosecutor Mueller Is a Political Hack

Notable quotes:
"... One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast. ..."
"... As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive. ..."
"... The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing. ..."
"... New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result. ..."
"... It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases). ..."
"... virtuous ..."
"... When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination. ..."
"... I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics. ..."
"... Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil. ..."
"... No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020. ..."
"... Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about. ..."
"... So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. ..."
"... You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen." ..."
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... The Year of Voting Dangerously ..."
Jun 17, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

As Lambert pointed out via e-mail:

There's so much bad history that's been normalized we become numb, and this is an impressive parade of horribles.

By George Washington. Originally published at his website

The New York Times characterizes special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:

Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.

Let's fact-check the Times

Anthrax Frame-Up

Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was "flawed and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case."

The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says the whole thing was a sham . He says that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were "politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters".

Moreover, the anthrax investigation head said that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, the FBI's anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:

(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence .

Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt . These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions .

In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an innocent man (and see this ).

Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil

Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil . Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commented at the time:

One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.

***

He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."

Spying on Americans

Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:

NBC News reports :

NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.

On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search .

Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.

On May 1st of this year, former FBI agent Tim Clemente told CNN's Erin Burnett that all present and past phone calls were recorded :

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation . It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not ."

The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored :

NSA whistleblowers say that this means that the NSA collects "word for word" all of our communications .

FBI special agent – and a 2002 Time Person of the Year – Colleen Rowley writes :

Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

Torture

FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out :

Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

Iraq War

Rowley notes :

When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.

Post 9/11 Round-Up

FBI special agent Rowley also notes :

Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists .

9/11 Cover Up

Rowley points out :

The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.

But overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable . Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable . Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable .

Rowley also said says :

TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11.

In addition, Rowley says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like. The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this ).

Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location . And see this .

And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks – points out :

Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

Conclusion

Rather than being "above the fray", Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.

As Coleen Rowley puts it :

It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

Furzy , June 17, 2017 at 10:26 am

Excellent run down of the 9/11 coverup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ342GueSUg&feature=youtu.be

15 Years Later: Never Forget 9/11 crimes were never thoroughly investigated

911InsideOut

4,752 views

Published on Aug 30, 2016
After 15 years of meticulous research and analysis into the events and theories surrounding 9/11, this is a collection of all the best facts and evidence proving who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crimes we witnessed on September 11th, and who ought to be investigated if we ever hope to get to the bottom of it.
Category
People & Blogs
License
Standard YouTube License

UserFriendly , June 17, 2017 at 4:02 am

Well of course he's an evil SOB who has done horrible things in the name of this country, but he has done them for both parties; hence the 'above the partisan fray' line. You can't be a partisan hack if you are hacking up dead bodies for both sides.

integer , June 17, 2017 at 4:43 am

Sigh. Yet another of the empire's eunuchs steps up to the plate. Trump will prevail.

Yves Smith Post author , June 17, 2017 at 6:35 am

I would not bet on that. The play seems to be to bait him into obstruction of justice or pressure him into a health crisis.

johnnygl , June 17, 2017 at 7:41 am

One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast.

As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive.

RenoDino , June 17, 2017 at 10:44 am

Driving down his popularity per se won't harm him. Even the elites who want him out could care less about the vox populi. They need to remind congressional Republicans there is only one party, the governing class, and supporting Trump makes them guilty by association of colluding with Russia and obstructing justice. The end game is making Republicans fall in line with the establishment thus making way for impeachment. It's their only hope and a long shot because the Republicans will be committing suicide.

Art Eclectic , June 17, 2017 at 12:14 pm

Republicans are on a Bataan Death March either way. They either embrace the alt-right and make that the new party standard or the alt-right destroys them. Trumps campaign was about burning down the governing class without respect for party. Not that he will be allowed to do any such thing on a grand scale, there's too much money at stake from donors who bought the governing apparatus fair and square.

Forcing the Republicans to engage in internecine warfare is destroying them. Democrats are doing the job on their own without much help from Trump's team. Both parties are under siege, which is not a bad thing. The bad thing is the destruction of education, energy, environmental, and financial policy. Instead of draining the swamp Trump has introduced swamp sharks to the predator mix.

RenoDino , June 17, 2017 at 1:00 pm

Totally agree and I like introduction of swamp sharks as a new predator class. I envision them as a football with fins. The policies you mentioned were already bad to begin with. Trump's tampering may make them worse at the margins.

Waking Up , June 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm

The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing.

New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result.

Arizona Slim , June 17, 2017 at 8:58 am

Pressure him into a health crisis? Hmmm, where have we seen that one before?

Point of history: A few months after he left office (in disgrace), Nixon had a phlebitis attack and nearly died.

And he wasn't in the best of shape before he left the White House.

Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 7:01 am

It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases).

It's going to be an expensive lesson though, and the political class might even double down on it; what we need is a virtuous CEO; like Zuckerberg, for example.

* I suppose the counter-argument would be Bloomberg. Perhaps there's a scale issue.

Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 2:00 pm

> Zuckerberg or bloomberg are virtuous? I hope you are joking or being sarcastic.

I ladle my irony out with a shovel these days. It's the only way to cope.

EndOfTheWorld , June 17, 2017 at 5:14 am

When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination.

Sometimes he will get on Twitter and say some belligerent stuff, but doesn't he realize that he has the authority to hire and fire who he wants?

Carolinian , June 17, 2017 at 8:53 am

I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics.

Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil.

EndOfTheWorld , June 17, 2017 at 9:22 am

Right, when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment. But he had to: otherwise they would never have let him leave the convention with the nomination.

I would have preferred to see him select somebody like Jesse Ventura or Nomi Prins or Alex Jones as veep and let the chips fall where they may. It's not like he needs the job anyway.

edmondo , June 17, 2017 at 10:59 am

" when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment.".

No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020.

EndOfTheWorld , June 17, 2017 at 12:34 pm

They turned him down only because they believed he had no chance of winning. But he had to choose somebody entrenched with the Republican establishment, because as it was he barely made it out of Cleveland still the nominee.

There were a lot of Republicans like Romney and Kasich who went to Cleveland but did not attend the convention. Obviously hoping for some kind of coup which would kick out The Donald.

Kim Kaufman , June 17, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Chris Christie would have done it in a heartbeat. The establishment did sort of force or trick Trump into Pence as I recall.

Disturbed Voter , June 17, 2017 at 6:41 am

People who want to be liked/loved are insecure demagogues. People who obey illegal orders or who initiate them, are no friend of the People. And yes, the real Deep State is bipartisan. Partisanship we see is kabuki.

And most coverups aren't Bourne Identity, they are just an incompetent bureaucracy covering its tracks.

RRH , June 17, 2017 at 7:46 am

"Hope" is not "You Will" when it comes to Flynn.

Asking organizations that knew there was no connection to make it public is not "obstruction of justice," it is exposing the deep state's intense effort to keep the level of the swamp high. Telling Comey to get on with the investigation is not obstruction, but an effort to expedite the witch hunt to it's logical conclusion so that the Administration can get on with it's agenda. Deep state's leaks are all against Trump. Statistically impossible.

cocomaan , June 17, 2017 at 8:15 am

Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about.

Good to see George Washington around these parts again, there's few people as passionate about politics as him!

Katniss Everdeen , June 17, 2017 at 9:14 am

Here's an interesting run through of mueller's handling of the anthrax investigation, among other things. A fun bit:

So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."

Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/21/comey-mueller-bungled-big-anthrax-case-together/

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fix is in. BTW, Hatfill got $5+ million in taxpayer money thanks to mueller / comey's dogged yet severely flawed pursuit of truth, justice and the american way.

Alex Morfesis , June 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Hold on had to open another roll to triple layer my tf hat there that's better

If hatfill might lead to others, one has to work hard to create the legend and backstory to divert attention

Mueller is the typical insider designed to insure only the unwashed and uninitiated are thrown into the grinder to keep the news folks busy with filling the hole between the ads

Hatfill might not have been the direct person, but the south afrikans and boeremag around and associated with him

And those wondrous apartheidistas were allowed to keep their toys after most of them had their "matter" dismissed

Mueller is there to keep trump in check the investigation will go on and on and on feeding tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to a group of "approved" insiders who will occasionally on a late friday, burp out some pdf report before some major sporting event or just after some massive news story on a thursday

"Bungling" a case is the best way to cover it up when it might lead to unexpected further investigation

Back to the funny papers yellow kid strikes again

teejay , June 17, 2017 at 8:59 am

Washington Blog forgot to mention Mueller slow walking the BCCI investigation.

https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/special-prosecutor-mueller-is-the-consummate-deep-state-insider/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=4304

lyman alpha blob , June 17, 2017 at 10:52 am

Good catch – thanks for pointing that out.

Mueller was also head of the FBI when post 9-11 it began framing impressionable young men by handing them phony weapons and then arresting them as 'terrorists' in an attempt to make it look like the spooks were keeping the country safe or some such nonsense.

I would imagine Trump can expect the same treatment.

Charles Yaker , June 17, 2017 at 9:59 am

Just for the record Trump is being Trump just like Obama did what Obama wanted despite Progressive self denial.

David Carl Grimes , June 17, 2017 at 10:33 am

Does the obstruction of justice issue have any merit? I thought it was a nothingburger according to posts here in the NC

Yves Smith Post author , June 17, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Of all people, Alan Dershowitz says no because in the US the DoJ and the FBI report to the President. He can fire anyone he wants to. According to Dershowitz, he can also tell them to stop an investigation. He can also pardon anyone, including himself! The idea that they are independent is a canard the media has been selling and civics-challenged Americans have been buying.

This is also not at all comparable to Watergate. There was an actual crime, as opposed to a protracted "Trump won when he shouldn't have! Evil Rooskies must have engineered it! And on top of that, they must have a secret handshake with Trump!" that has yet to do anything beyond hyperventilate about Trump officials knowing and meeting some Russians. And the reason firing the Watergate special prosecutor was obstruction of justice was that that that investigator, Archibald Cox, had been appointed by Congress and therefore really was independent.

Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 1:55 pm

To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis. Dubious, at best. Anonymous leaks from "intelligence officials" are not enough. Nor is the Steele report, such as it is.

Parker Dooley , June 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm

"To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis"

Lambert, that is not how it works for the little people. Based on the gossip about Trump's actual net worth, perhaps he has been pegged as one of "us".

Plenue , June 17, 2017 at 7:09 pm

Democrats have gone from "Russia did something AND WE HAVE PROOF!" to Maxine Waters admitting they don't even have evidence that any crime was committed, but they all believe that something happened, so they just have 'connect the dots' and find actual evidence. This is some real presuppositional crap here; this is the type of 'thinking' that liberals are always mocking Creationists for. Over half of year with no evidence that anything even happened isn't an investigation: it's a fishing expedition.

Bobby Gladd , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm

So many Bright Shiny Things out there for our distraction pleasure (golden shower hookers, Russian anti-Clinton email and election hacking, dirty money, Jared ). How about keeping Eyes on the Prize. General Flynn was conducting an illegal rogue solo privatized ad hoc foreign policy shop, for which he was getting handsomely compensated by foreign entities. Trump either knew it since the beginning of their relationship (and either didn't care, or winky-winky greenlighted it), or suborned it when he later found out. Then he incontrovertibly started leaning on the investigations. Obstruction of Justice, if the phrase is to have any rational meaning. Whether the only remedy for that is impeachment is a separate issue (and is probably the case where Trump is concerned, notwithstanding that he'll probably pardon Flynn and bet on not getting convicted by the Senate).

Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 7:29 pm

Since the whole thing is such a mass of confusion and conjecture, I don't see how it's clear what can have been "obstructed" or indeed what "justice" might mean. (Rhe "Russian hacking" of votes, for example, is so ludicrous it's pointless to discuss it, even if around half of Clinton's voters believe it)

On Flynn, who Trump heaved over the side, the alternative theory is that Flynn was opening an independent channel to the Russians, and The Blob hates that, because they want to go to war with Russia. As far as "inconvertibly," I always look adverbs like that. All I can tell is that great legal minds differ.

Steven , June 17, 2017 at 10:51 am

What the country and the world needs is someone who is actually serious about 'Draining the swamp' in Washington – and the editorial offices at the New York Times!

P.S. I'm still reading Maureen Dowd's The Year of Voting Dangerously . In a 2014 article Dowd provides a catalogue of sellouts by major Democratic Party players to Hillary and the Clintons, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, when it looked like the 2016 election was going to be a sure thing for HRC. The catalogue was so precise and devastating most likely the only thing that saved Dowd's job at the NYT was the reverence for HRC's ruthless pursuit of power with which she concluded the chapter (and, of course, Dowd's prodigious talent as a writer) .

Art Eclectic , June 17, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Draining the swamp in Washington would require removal of all sitting members of Congress. Those people ARE the swamp. They're duly elected and funded by the donor class to make business decisions that will impact revenue for the winners. We hold elections to decide which businesses we want to win. The FIRE sector famously buys both sides of the table to hedge.

JEHR , June 17, 2017 at 12:38 pm

A fine description!

Michael , June 17, 2017 at 12:09 pm

How crazy is the idea that Paul Ryan becomes Prez after the investigations conclude? We haven't done that yet if I recall correctly. Would Pence be any good as a Prez? Or would the R party clean house and force him out? Could he select a new VP then? (I don't know the answer to that one either) .

Yves Smith Post author , June 17, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Completely batshit but the Democrats keeping the upset dialed to 11 may get us there.

Pence was not a very good governor but he'd be celebrated for looking Presidential and not being Trump. He's also way more conservative and would get far more bills passed.

The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather than actually succeeding in driving him out. Pence would be a much less powerful fundraising hook than Trump, for instance.

Left in Wisconsin , June 17, 2017 at 1:46 pm

Dems want to make same mistake nationally they made here with Walker. Instead of giving voters til the next election to make up their mind, they prematurely instigated a recall, leading to the recall election being in the middle of summer instead of Nov 2012, and they lost because a majority of voters didn't like the process.

If they succeed in getting Trump out before 2018, there is likely to be a huge sympathy vote for Repubs when 2018 rolls around.

gepay , June 17, 2017 at 3:07 pm

Such is the state of political affairs that one has to wonder what, if anything, is true. Did Trump select (?) Pence as VP in order to get some cooperation from the mainsteam Republicans? If he had picked someone like Ron Paul one might have thought there was a good chance he would "drain the swamp". Goldman Sachs alumni, billionaires, and generals in his cabinet are not exactly "draining the swamp". One couldn't submit to HBO a series script with some general (affectionately lol) known as "Mad Dog" being the Sec of Def. So what part of the Powers That Be does Mueller work for? The part of which Soros is a visible element was not happy with Trump. It is possible that this whole circus is just a distraction rather than two different elements of the people who really decide things fighting. One clue is if damaging evidence comes out about either side. it is possible that the DNC and Podesta leaks were just from disillusioned Democrat (Bernie suppporters). Or they could be the evidence there is a real split.Did the revelations of former CFR (?ostracized) Steve Pieczenik of Trump being a counter coup to ;the Clintonistas have any value? FDR said, if it happens in the political world, it was planned, The only thing clear to me is when you get this kind hall of mirrors head confusion, then the CIA is at work.

Bernard , June 17, 2017 at 12:43 pm

Trump is a businessman out to make a profit. Hillary is a con artist out to grift. otherwise, there isn't that much difference betwixt the two. Hillary is straight forward with her "scam." Trump uses Market strategy to con others . Hillary uses whatever it takes to "get" and "enjoy" Power.

Trump's kind of business "men" hire media who enable the "Right kind" of Calvanism/American "Thinking" which has bought Congress. These grifters "use" whatever it takes to get what they want. Since everything has a price, Everything is for sale to the highest bidder . outright theft, looting and pillaging legalized by Congress. Lies, mispeaking, and others means. "Whatever it takes!," as someone said.

we could not foresee exactly what kind of "Grifter in Chief" Trump would turn out to be until in office . The Blob has now 'ensnared" Trump as blowback for "stealing" the Presidency. Hillary as the rightful heir is doing her part with her morally indignant, empty and vacuous righteousness, as if she possessed "morals" to begin with.

Hillary has continued to play her part in the subterfuge, though it's all out in the open, which lost her the deplorables' vote she didn't care about but she needed.

watching people show surprise at either of these two actors shows how Americans are so easily "led/fooled" by the PR. Goebbels was just ahead of his time . St. Reagan, a Hollywood Actor, who played his "Role," proved how easy it was to "sell' us out to Big Business. Before St. Reagan, due to losing so many elections, the Republican Party just laid low and built the groundwork for the absolute oligarchy we 'enjoy" courtesy of a bought and sold highest bidder Congress we see today.

we cant be nice or respectful to those who despoil our country or planet, for profit. a profit the 99% pay. not calling a spade a spade is how we got to this despicable situation, and allows the Scam to continue. Vichy Democrats and Corporate Republicans need to be jailed. Polite criticism wont cut it.

"For the many, not the few" is a belief we need here in America, too. though Americans are still buying the self-hating PR so-called Leaders Thatcher, St. Reagan sold. the young don't, however, which could promise a hopeful future in England. maybe Bernie can help reconnect the Youth here in America. Obama destroyed that "Dream" in America for the Poor and Young, thank you,very much.

Kent St. shows how the Blob responded to the Youth 50 years ago.
power cedes nothing without unyielding force in America.

Don Lowell , June 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Nothing will happen until we get rid of fixed elections. Suppression, kicking voters off the list, gerrymandering, no paper trail voting machine's. We are screwed.

dcblogger , June 17, 2017 at 3:55 pm

Mueller also play a notorious role in the Starr Chamber Whitewater witch hunt. Mueller is really truly awful. In some ways it is satisfying to see all the Republican hacks turn on one another.

Bobby Gladd , June 17, 2017 at 7:46 pm

Busted for my typo. Fair enough. :)

Flynn broke laws, repeatedly. I dimly recall some long ago "3rd rate burglary."

Trump is minimally trying to interfere with justice in regard to Flynn, for whatever reasons.

witters , June 17, 2017 at 7:58 pm

"Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness."

So he was independent and fairness? Clearly laughable nonsense.
So he was "cultivating a rare reputation" as such?
OK: Does that mean for the NYT that "cultivating a rare reputation for X" is what is it TO BE X?
In that case reality has collapsed into and become mere appearance.

(No wonder listening to Putin on Stone's movie is like listening to a different world.)

[Jun 18, 2017] What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook on the subject.

Jun 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova - June 18, 2017 at 04:24 PM "

I like your use of color revolution analogy; it enrages liberal interventionists"

Thank you -- But is not an analogy. What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook on the subject.

I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the election, by discrediting already discredited neoliberal establishment (Although, as any patriotic American, I strongly doubt they can tamper as well as we can.)

But the set of steps we observed was the plot to appoint a Special Prosecutor, who later is expected to sink Trump. After the Special Prosecutor was appointed Russia changes does not matter, and more "elastic" charge of "obstruction of justice" can be used instead.

Also note the heavy participation of two heads of intelligence agencies (Clapper and Brennan) and State Department officials in the plot.

[Jun 18, 2017] Red Alert: Russian Focus Might Save Trumps

Notable quotes:
"... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication. ..."
"... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
"... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
"... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jun 18, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news); his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still green, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media outlets reaped tons of ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise - learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding with this and/or covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.

That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters, all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's inner circle in vote tampering exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking into Russian ties from many angles.

I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication.

Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance," the Trump White House and the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned, burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through, in secret, a "health-care" bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.

And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.

I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention those of other nations.) And let's put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel - even though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible" evidence of Saddam's WMD way back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared, "We came, we saw, he DIED!"

Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.

Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.

Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor.

Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now, keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God's sake. You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.

Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump's criminal corruption would doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world": the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy - in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?

We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he's left across a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing on the galling spectacle of Trump's character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's dirty deals, but they never really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)

Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.

But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters - had more to do with Trump's victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.

Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has been done - and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands of espionage.

But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of "subversives" trumpeted in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know people who still live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line every day fighting Putin's tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims, immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.

So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome - oh damn, I gave myself away again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.

[Jun 18, 2017] Banana republic

Jun 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Cripes , June 17, 2017 at 2:48 am

Surprise, surprise.

Washington's blog does a fine job of archiving and assembling this kind of background, many pieces of which we all should remember, and make more sense together.

[Jun 18, 2017] 'Witch Hunt' Trump takes to Twitter to lash out at '7 months of collusion probes'

Notable quotes:
"... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," ..."
Jun 18, 2017 | www.rt.com
Donald Trump has made a series of tweets about the prolonged investigations into alleged collusion with the Russian government and obstruction of justice, which he says yielded no proof. One of the tweets refers to his firing of FBI Director James Comey. "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," Trump tweeted, sending users and media into a guessing game of what exactly he meant.

I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017

Trump appeared to be referring to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote a memo recommending that Comey be fired.

Rosenstein also appointed Robert Mueller to investigate ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Mueller is said to be investigating whether Trump obstructed the course of justice in the probe into Russian interference in the US elections.

[Jun 18, 2017] As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a Messianic consciousness, Americans came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be judged by standards applied to others.

Jun 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH -

, June 17, 2017 at 04:18 PM
Bacevich is a treasure...he's been inside the belly of the beast, and understands from first hand knowledge how it produces immense quantities of BS for public consumption and for preserving its own perks, privileges, and budgets.
libezkova - , June 17, 2017 at 11:39 PM
Yes, Bacevich is an interesting conservative critic of neocon foreign policy.

See for example his recent book:

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Greater-Middle-East/dp/0553393952

He wrote a foreword to reprint of The Irony of American History (Paperback) by Reinhold Niebuhr which you can read on Amazon for free.

Niebuhr thought deeply about the dilemmas confronting the United States as a consequence of its emergence after World War I and, even more, after World War II, as a global superpower. The truths he spoke are uncomfortable ones for us to hear-uncomfortable not only because they demand a great deal of us as citizens, but also because they outline so starkly some of our recent failures. Four such truths are especially underlined in The Irony of American History: the persistent sin of American Exceptionalism; the indecipherability of history; the false allure of simple solutions; and, finally, the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.

The Anglo-American colonists who settled these shores, writes Niebuhr, saw their purpose as "to make a new beginning in a corrupt world." They believed "that we had been called out by God to create a new humanity." They believed further that this covenant with God marked America as a new Israel.

As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a "Messianic consciousness," Americans came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be judged by standards applied to others.

... ... ...

Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf. "All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. "This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm."

In the United States, he continued, "The tendency to equate our political with our Christian convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."9

Evangelical conservatism and its growing influence on American politics, which Niebuhr did not live to see, have only reinforced this tendency.

Niebuhr anticipated that the American veneration of liberty could itself degenerate into a form of idolatry. In the midst of World War II, he went so far as to describe the worship of democracy as "a less vicious version of the Nazi creed." He cautioned that "no society, not even a democratic one, is great enough or good enough to make itself the final end of human existence."

Although he rarely uses the term "American [neoliberal] empire", and I think never terms "Washington consensus", "debt slavery", or neoliberalism.

[Jun 17, 2017] What would US foreign policy look like under President Pence by Hady Amr and Steve Feldstein

May 25, 2017 | thehill.com
Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable reputation. Many describe him as a " hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said on the campaign trail.

Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built up a reputation as one of the most conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and push an activist social conservative agenda.

For example, as the governor of Indiana, Pence signed one of the strictest abortion provisions in the country and approved a controversial law intended to allow businesses to deny services to members of the LGBT community for religious reasons (only after intense blowback did he backtrack). Translated into the foreign policy realm, it is not hard to imagine Pence defending Christian minorities around the world, possibly to the exclusion of other religious groups.

He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the " global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a " clash of civilizations " strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.

But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W. Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded, bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.

It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an abrupt about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence may reverse many of these pronouncements.

In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and the economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.

A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.

These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.

[Jun 17, 2017] Limbaugh The Swamp Has Got Trump Playing the Swamps Game - Thats Not What Trump Was Elected to Do

Notable quotes:
"... According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects. ..."
"... Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ): ..."
"... If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying. ..."
"... They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today. ..."
"... Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did. ..."
"... Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent. ..."
"... Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor ..."
Jun 17, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned President Donald Trump of "playing the swamp's game" in governing. advertisement

According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects.

Limbaugh argued although he was playing "the swamp's game," he had other tools at his disposal that he has yet to use.

Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ):

He could fire Rosenstein, and he could fire Mueller. There's nothing stopping him from doing it, nothing legally. He could go to Rosenstein right now. He would be perfectly within his bounds to go to Rosenstein and say, "Look, this investigation can't be wide open for anything. You've gotta limit what these people can look for. You've gotta limit it to actual felonious crimes. You can't have them subpoenaing anybody they want financial records, text records, tax records. There has to be a limit."

He would be perfectly within his bounds to do that because he is the executive branch. And if he wanted to fire these people, he could. When you see in the media, "There's no way he can do it," they're talking politically. But since the independent counsel, special counsel's been named, and now since they made sure to leak that Trump is under investigation, that is supposed to tie his hands, but it cannot tie his hands legally.

If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying.

And all that is true. But it need not stop him. What is being relied on, therefore, is conventional inside-the-Beltway thinking. Look, the Constitution has devised, for every branch of the government - the Founding Fathers were smart people, folks. They anticipated that there would be a never-ending quest to consolidate power. They understood human beings.

They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today.

These various mechanisms that the branches can constitutionally use to rein in, say, an overzealous executive. Or that a president can use to rein in overzealous members of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot run anything legislatively and vice-versa. Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did.

Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent.

But he could still do it. It's not constitutional or legal prohibitions stopping him. It's pure politics. And it's the politics of the swamp, folks. The swamp has got Trump playing the swamp's game right now. And that's not what Trump was elected to do, and that's not what Trump wants. Trump does not want to play the swamp's game. I think the effort to get health care passed in the House was Trump playing the swamp game. And by swamp game, I mean the traditional way to get legislation passed.

Somebody in the House comes up with a bill working with the White House and you got people that are for it and against it. You bring the detractors up to the White House, you wine and dine 'em, you cajole 'em, you beat 'em on the head. You do whatever, you try to get the bill passed, exactly the way it's always been done in the swamp. That first health care bill that ended up not being voted on because it never had a chance, I never thought it was gonna have a chance because it was "all swamp all the time."

Now, you might say, "Well, I mean, Rush, the swamp's the swamp. There's no other way to get a bill passed. The president's not a dictator." I understand that. But Trump has many more tools at his disposal than he is aware of. I shouldn't say that. He's got more tools at his disposal than he is using. The power vested in the president by the Constitution in the executive branch is awesome.

Now, there are limits to it. Separation of powers. But he hasn't gotten close to utilizing it. It's just politics that is the obstacle to getting rid of Mueller since Mueller has now leaked that Trump is under investigation. You've heard the media say if he gets rid of him now that takes us right back to Nixon. It takes us back to Nixon only because the media loved getting rid of Nixon. Nobody has any evidence Trump did anything yet. There isn't a shred of evidence even now, folks. If you read the Washington Post story on the latest examples of the independent counsel looking into financial - there's no evidence of anything. It's a wild good chase.

Trump would not be throwing out any evidence if he fired these people and shut down this investigation. If Trump thought the investigation was needlessly harming the country and derailing us at a time we needed to be focused on real dangers and enemies, he could do it. There would be hell to pay in the media, don't misunderstand. I mean, it would dwarf what's happening. But he could do it, is the point. Now, he won't probably choose to do it because of the political ramifications of it.

But the idea that he's been hamstrung since the beginning because he was inaugurated under investigation, and at that time we didn't even know what it was. It was just the FBI looking into Russia and collusion. Some of us have known that that was bogus from the get-go. Some of us have known that it was purely manufactured, invented by the Hillary campaign 24 hours after she lost. Some of us have never believed a single word of it and would have been happy if Trump acted that way as well.

But he didn't. Why? He's new. He wants to calm their fears. He wants to show them that the things they thought about him were not true, that the reasons they hated him were not grounded in any reality. He wanted to show them that he could work with them, be a good guy, we could all come together. I'm sure that's what he wanted to do. And of course they want no part of that 'cause they don't want any part of Donald Trump succeeding in anything, anytime, anywhere.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

[Jun 17, 2017] Global Order Is An Euphemism for Washingtons Hegemony

Notable quotes:
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
"... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
Jun 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
by Paul Craig Roberts

Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.

Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.

For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."

In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."

President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."

American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.

Here is Col. Andy Bacevich's column: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-global-order-myth/

[Jun 17, 2017] Are the Bilderbergers looking to overthrow Trump?

Jun 17, 2017 | thenationalsentinel.com

Posted on June 1, 2017 by usafeaturesmedia in globalism // 1 Comment

There is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their party

( National Sentinel ) Globalism: We already know that President Donald J. Trump's message of "America first" has rattled the world's globalist elite, as past American leaders have allowed them to feed off our success and drain jobs, opportunities and treasure from our country while they distribute that wealth to other countries, so they can control them. Globalism today really is nothing less that colonialism from past centuries, only writ large and done with dollars, not military divisions.

In any event, Trump's nose-thumbing of the G7 leaders' agenda and his [reported] plan to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords may be a bridge too far for the world's elite, many of whom are meeting in Chantilly, Va., this week – an event to which Trump did send representation .

As reported by The Guardian , the secretive Bilderberg annual gathering of the world's governing and industrial elite "will include a 'progress report' on the Trump administration," and no one is sure if he'll get a passing grade.

So, perhaps, Plan B is taking shape.

As reported "exclusively" by InfoWars (yes, we know, but read on anyway), that plan may consist of "overthrowing" Trump in an extreme, last-use tactic to thwart his agenda, if talking to him and convincing him to abandon it (which he can't do because he'll lose reelection) doesn't work:

Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg Group conference tell Infowars that globalists see their agenda as being in "deep trouble" and that Donald Trump poses a "dangerous" risk to the international order and must be brought to heel or turfed out of office.

Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to the conference who feed us information ahead of time as to the real agenda behind the confab, not just the vague list of topics released officially by Bilderberg.

Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and Trump came to pass, the effort to derail both is very much the primary focus of discussion amongst globalists in attendance this week.

One Bilderberger told the site that since Trump is "dangerously obsessed" with upsetting and derailing the current world order, it may just be that there is no other way for the globalist cabal to protect its interests than deposing, or helping to depose, a U.S. president who, for the first time in decades, isn't dancing to the same sheet of music.

More:

Globalists are baffled as to Trump's "erratic" style of governance and are panicked that he could undo decades of work they put in to build the new world order.

However, Bilderbergers still think Trump can be brought to his senses and taught "how the world really works," a line that is typical of the arrogance that has come to epitomize the attitude of Bilderberg members over the years.

Given the highly unlikely scenario of Trump taking orders from Bilderberg, the only recourse left for the elite will be to turf him out of office.

Another Bilderberger is confident that Trump can be impeached, but only if Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018, in which case his days are "numbered".

If the impeachment of Trump is in process by the end of 2018, globalists are confident that any effort on behalf of his administration to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and any other globalist treaties will be thwarted.

As of this writing Trump has yet to formally announce he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accords (or declare it a treaty and send it to the Senate, where it won't be ratified). But clearly there is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their party.

[Jun 17, 2017] Deputy AG Rosenstein sees no reason to recuse himself from Russia probe, Justice Dept. says

In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Rosenstein to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He did get this position.
Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia "President Donald Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on January 13, 2017. Rosenstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017"
On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein (who had been put in charge of the Russia probe as soon as he was confirmed, because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself after it was reported that he had failed to disclose his contacts with the Russian ambassador when asked about those during his Senate confirmation hearing[38]) appointed Robert Mueller as a special counsel to conduct the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" as well as any matters arising directly from that investigation.[39] Rosenstein's order authorizes Mueller to bring criminal charges in the event that he discovers any federal crimes.[39]
www.politico.com

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein sees no reason at this point to recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel's investigations involving President Trump and the 2016 presidential election, the Justice Department said Friday.

[Jun 16, 2017] Rosenstein may need to recuse himself from Russia probe ABC News

After backstabbing Trump, he now wants to play the game further...
Jun 16, 2017 | www.msn.com
WASHINGTON - U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has privately acknowledged he may need to recuse himself from matters relating to the probe into Russia and last year's U.S. election, given that he could become a potential witness in the investigation, ABC News reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.

ABC said Rosenstein, the No. 2 official at the Department of Justice, told Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand she would have authority over the probe if he were to step aside. Rosenstein appointed special counsel Robert Mueller last month to investigate alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election and possible collusion by President Donald Trump's campaign, and has told lawmakers he would fire him only with good cause.

He is the department's lead official on the issue after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any issues linked to the Russia probe. Rosenstein was also the author of a memo recommending the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, which the White House cited along with a memo from Sessions as the reason Trump fired Comey on May 9.

Trump, a Republican, later said that he had the Russia matter in mind when he fired Comey. The Democratic National Committee said on Friday it saw a need for Rosenstein to recuse himself, but it said control over the investigation should be given to Mueller and not another Trump appointee.

ABC's report comes as Trump said on Friday he is personally under investigation in the widening Russia probe over Comey's firing. According to ABC, Rosenstein made the comments about his possible recusal at a recent meeting with Brand but has yet to formally ask career attorneys at the department for their opinion on the issue.

At a Senate hearing earlier this week, Rosenstein declined to answer whether he would have a conflict of interest if he became a witness in the investigation but pledged to "do the right thing."

[Jun 16, 2017] Man on a Wire Mike Pences Tightrope Act

Politico is the mouth peace of conspirators -- so it looks like the the plan is President Pence.
Jun 16, 2017 | www.politico.com
"The truth is, you elected a man who never quits. He never backs down. He's a fighter. He's a winner," Pence said, according to an audio recording obtained by Politico Magazine . "And I'll make you a promise: No matter what Washington, D.C., might be focused on at any given moment, President Donald Trump will never stop fighting for the American people and for advancing an agenda that will make America great again!"

His audience roared. For those who feared the GOP's once-in-a-generation opportunity for a policy renaissance was being squandered by infighting and incompetence and the creeping scent of scandal, the vice president's words, as they so often have during the early days of the Trump administration, provided temporary relief. The performance was vintage Pence. He was grandiose but grounded, hailing a host of early victories but cautioning that the biggest were yet to come; he was authoritative but deferential, speaking for the party and the government while carrying greetings from his boss. Above all, Pence was upbeat, befitting the "happy warrior" persona he has long labored to promote. "It's hard to get through all these accomplishments-unless you're watching cable news," he said, chuckling. "They never come up, except on one network!" Had Pence not nodded twice to the Beltway media's preoccupations, one would have had no inkling that Trump was enduring the most perilous stretch of his young presidency-or that Pence appeared at risk of becoming collateral damage.

The night before, on the eve of Trump's first foreign trip-and Pence's private speech-two news outlets published a pair of eyebrow-raising stories that reflected mounting anxiety within the vice president's inner circle. The sourcing and strategy seemed clearly choreographed. First, both articles aimed to distance Pence from the chaos engulfing Trump's White House; CNN quoted "a senior administration adviser" who said Pence "looks tired" and never expected such mayhem on the job, while NBC cited "a source close to the administration" who complained of a "pattern" of Pence being kept in the dark on matters relating to the scandal-plagued former national security adviser, Mike Flynn. Second, both stories were authored by former Pence "embeds," reporters who had spent months traveling with him and are expertly sourced among the vice president's tight-knit team. And third, the news accounts cast Pence in a sympathetic light at the very moment when the D.C. media was, for the first time, beginning to hammer him. The New York Times had reported the day earlier that Flynn informed the Pence-run transition team before Inauguration Day that he was under federal investigation; the implications for Pence were staggering, and the White House categorically denied the story. But Pence had also courted trouble the week earlier by insisting that Trump's decision to fire Comey was based on the deputy attorney general's recommendation-a claim Trump promptly contradicted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, embarrassing the vice president and sending an awkward question echoing around Washington: Is Pence being kept out of the loop, or is he being deceitful?

[Jun 15, 2017] Many Americans know that MSM are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so they actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of spam in comments. It is dispiriting to say the least.

Notable quotes:
"... Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least. ..."
"... That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy. ..."
"... Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-) ..."
"... Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis! ..."
"... Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'. ..."
"... the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive. ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
at Al, June 7, 2017 at 7:17 am

Vis the Reality Winner leaking 'proof' of Russian hacking of US elections, PavewayIV's comment on Moon of Alabama says it all:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d28a09f7970c

####

He's one of a handful of good commenters there among the nutbags, antisemites, conspiracy theorists etc. It's one of the things that really bugs me about great (supposedly) alternative news/opinion/blogs. They always get immediately contaminated by all sorts of narcissistic 'tards who just want to s/t the bed for everyone else, particularly the flyby trolls. Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least.

That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy.

Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-)

et Al , June 7, 2017 at 7:43 am
'Ghostship' elucidates how Reality Winner would have access to top class info;

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c9000590970b

####

My only thoughts are, wouldn't such info be compartmentalized (standard operating procedure, innit?), i.e. a 'translator' would not have free and unlimited access, but rather have access to only very specific highly secret info? If there are that many translators out there, then compartmentalization would work very well. It is totally counter intuitive, nay stupid , to allow free range to anyone but the top of the top. More people, more chance of leaks, accidents or incomptence.

et Al , June 7, 2017 at 7:50 am
Ah, I should have read on. PavewayIV again:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09a3288d970d

####

Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'.

marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 8:09 pm
Indeed it is; Secret and Top secret information is made available to those who

(1) are cleared to the appropriate level, and

(2) have the need to know.

It's "and". Not "or". Top Secret information may not be viewed by anyone with a Top Secret security clearance – only by those who need to know that information to carry out their duties related to it.

Information may actually specify, "Top Secret – Eyes Only" in which the personnel holding a Top Secret clearance who may view the material are either listed, or it is restricted only to the addressee.

yalensis , June 8, 2017 at 2:34 am
I dunno, because that whole Snowden thing revealed a lot of holes in the American security apparatus. Snowden himself was surprised just how much stuff he was able to access, and he was just a contractor at the time, not even a permanent employee.
marknesop , June 8, 2017 at 5:37 am
Well, yes, because the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive.

But to the very best of my knowledge Snowden did not reveal any secrets of America's defense systems, its operational structure, its past military operations or its future plans in that area, if he knew them. The damaging information he disclosed all related to American spying on foreign leaders and the American electorate

[Jun 15, 2017] The Consent of the Governed

www.businessinsider.com

Last week, when former FBI Director James Comey gave his long-awaited public testimony about his apparently rough-and-tumble relationship with President Donald Trump, he painted a bleak picture. The essence of Comey's testimony was that the president asked him to drop an investigation of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn - Trump's former national security adviser - and then asked him to do so in return for keeping his job as FBI director and then fired him for not obeying his order.

On the other hand, Comey confirmed that the president personally, as of the time of Comey's firing, was not the target of any FBI criminal investigation. It was not clear from the Comey testimony whether this exoneration was referring to salacious allegations made by a former British intelligence agent of highly inappropriate and fiercely denied personal behavior a few years ago in a Moscow hotel room or whether the exoneration was with respect to widely reported allegations that the 2016 Trump campaign may have helped Russian intelligence agents in their efforts to manipulate the outcome of the presidential election.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt the president is now a target of a federal investigation with respect to his dealings with the then-FBI director. So, how could the tables have turned so quickly on the president, and who turned them? Here is the back story.

Prior to the Watergate era of the mid-1970s, the generally accepted theory of management of the executive branch of government was known as the unitary executive. This theory informs that the president is the chief executive officer of the federal government and is the sole head of the executive branch. He is also the only person in the executive branch who is accountable to the voters, as he, and he alone (along with the vice president, who is largely a figurehead), has been elected by the voters.

As such, this unitary executive theory informs, everyone in the executive branch of the federal government works at the pleasure of the president. Were this not the case, then vast areas of governance could occur and vast governmental resources could be spent by people who are unaccountable to the voters. And when the government is unaccountable to the voters, it lacks their consent. The consent of the governed is the linchpin and bedrock of popular government in America.

There are, of course, today vast areas of government that are not responsive to the people and that lack the consent of the governed. The administrative agencies that write, interpret and enforce their own regulations and the deep state - the secret parts of the financial, intelligence and law enforcement entities of the government that never change, operate below the radar screen and have budgets that never see the light of day - defy the notion that the consent of the governed is the sole legitimate basis for government in America.

Yet the FBI is not in the administrative state or the deep state. It is front and center as the premier law enforcement agency of the United States government. It is far from perfect, and its leaders are as fallible as the rest of us, but we have hired the folks who work there to enforce the federal laws that implicate our freedoms and our safety. And we have hired the president to exercise his discretion as to which laws shall be enforced and against whom.

Thus, under this theory, the president is constitutionally, legally, morally and ethically free to direct any person in the executive branch as to how he wants that person to perform his or her job. And the recipient of such direction is free to resign if the direction appears unlawful. That is at least the theory of the unitary executive.

After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It did so in reaction to Nixonian abuses. Thus, the post-Watergate theory of the DOJ's role articulates that federal law enforcement is independent from the president.

The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive. Comey revealed a DOJ under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in lockstep with the Obama White House and determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the espionage investigation concerning her emails, no matter the evidence. He also revealed his own view that President Trump's orders and quid pro quo offer with respect to Flynn were unlawful.
Where does this leave us today?

Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election, the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this. And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.

These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without that consent, it is illegitimate.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

Jun 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Feb 1, 2017 Secrets Of The FBI Finally Revealed and Leaked

In this video, we go over the latest FBI leak of thousands of documents to the intercept that revealed their secret rule book and operations. We go over what was found in those documents and the dangers of these powers that the FBI has.

log Website, June 15, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

Dear Judge:

The existence of state secrets means the consent of the governed can never be informed.

themann, June 15, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

So when exactly did any of us, or our representatives, vote on the income tax? Because I certainly don't remember consenting to it.

Or twelve years of public schooling.
Or the TSA.
Or the entire history of Civil Wrongs laws.

Hyperventilating about the actions of one set of corrupt public officials vs. another is a bit far down the list of non consent issues any of us should be concerned about.

Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

I was expecting an article more related to this video and its content and narrative.

Dec 3, 2012 Murray Rothbard – The Government Is Not Us

Professor Rothard examines the irrational implications of the premise "we are the government."

willem1, June 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT

"After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive."

The above quotes imply that these two policies are just "theories" of executive authority, and not really enshrined in hard law. However, the article is never clear on whether or not that is the case. If these are just two competing theories, and no law or clear court precedent exists, then what is the legal basis for any investigation/lawsuit? Inquiring minds want to know .

[Jun 15, 2017] Neocons are after Trump, managed to appoint special procecutor by subterfuge and Trump now losing...

Jun 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs, June 14, 2017 at 08:17 PM

Special-counsel probe is examining whether Trump obstructed justice
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probe-examining-whether-donald-trump-obstructed-justice-1497490897

WSJ - Del Quentin Wilber, Shane Harris and Paul Sonne - June 14, 2017

WASHINGTON-President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey is now a subject of the federal probe being headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, which has expanded to include whether the president obstructed justice, a person familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Mueller is examining whether the president fired Mr. Comey as part of a broader effort to alter the direction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and whether associates of Mr. Trump colluded with Moscow, the person said.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, denounced the revelation in a statement. "The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," Mr. Corallo said.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, declined to comment. The special counsel's pursuit of an obstruction of justice probe was first reported Wednesday by the Washington Post. Mr. Mueller's team is planning to interview Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers as part of its examination of whether Mr. Trump sought to obstruct justice, the person said. The special counsel also plans to interview Rick Ledgett, who recently retired as the deputy director of the NSA, the person added.

While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. During the call, the president questioned the veracity of the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had interfered with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russian officials, they said. Russia has denied any government effort to meddle in the U.S. election. Mr. Ledgett declined to comment, and officials at the NSA didn't respond to a request for comment. An aide to Mr. Coats declined to comment.

Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers told a Senate panel June 7 that they didn't feel pressured by Mr. Trump to intervene with Mr. Comey or push back against allegations of possible collusion between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia. But the top national security officials declined to say what, if anything, Mr. Trump requested they do in relation to the Russia probe.

"If the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him to ask his questions, I said I would be willing to do that," Mr. Coats said June 7. Mr. Rogers said he would also be willing to meet with the special counsel's team.

Mr. Comey told a Senate panel on June 8 that Mr. Trump expressed "hope" in a one-on-one Oval Office meeting that the FBI would drop its investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned under pressure for making false statements about his conversations with a Russian diplomat. Mr. Trump has denied making that request.

Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to obstruction of justice. The former FBI director also said he had furnished the special counsel with memos he wrote documenting his interactions with the president on the matter.

At a June 13 hearing at a House of Representatives panel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein declined to say who asked him to write a memo justifying Mr. Comey's firing. The White House initially cited that memo as the reason for the termination, and Mr. Trump later said in an NBC interview that he also was influenced by the Russia investigation. Mr. Rosenstein said he wasn't at liberty to discuss the matter.

"The reason for that is that if it is within the scope of Director Mueller's investigation, and I've been a prosecutor for 27 years, we don't want people talking publicly about the subjects of ongoing investigations," Mr. Rosenstein said.

libezkova - , June 14, 2017 at 09:00 PM
Fred,

"Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to obstruction of justice."

Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.

Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result. The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his son-in-law deals. In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival, by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia.

Which probably is OK for neocons because war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.

BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.

Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.

Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.

This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid Hillary hacks for the job ;-).

But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the new level?

Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably right:

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/are-we-nearing-civil-war

Not that I trust him with such a prediction, but still this is a danger.

EMichael - , June 14, 2017 at 09:26 PM
troll/bot
libezkova - , June 15, 2017 at 05:29 PM
You are a typical retired "frustrated underachiever". Nothing new here and your replies fits the pattern perfectly well.

You probably should not comment things that you have no formal training. I do believe that you are unable to define such terms as "neocon", "Bolshevism", "Trotskyism" and "jingoism" without looking into the dictionary. Judging from your comments this is above your IQ. Of cause, such twerps as you are always lucking in Internet forums, so you are just accepted here as the necessary evil. But you do no belong here. No way. Neither in economic or political discussions.

You can add nothing to the discussion. Actually your political position is the position of a typical neocons and as such is as close to betrayal of American Republic as one can get. If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies and wars have created. Because interests of neocons are not interests of the 300 million of US population. That's why people elected Trump with all his warts.

It is sleazy idiots like you who get us into the current mess. And please tell your daughters that you betrayed them as well -- you endanger them and their children, if they have any. Of course for retired idiots like you nuclear holocaust does not matter. But it does matter for other people. Is it so difficult to understand?

im1dc - , June 15, 2017 at 05:14 AM
Trump/Putin Spin.
JF - , June 15, 2017 at 07:50 AM
Agree, add JohnH and you see a disinformation team. One goal is to undermine the credibility of this blog, so skipping over their entries is what I recommend, unless you want to learn fifth column techniques. Quess that is interesting, but it is trolldpm!
JohnH - , June 15, 2017 at 08:05 AM
The choir of losers continues to sing: 'Putin and Trump colluded' ...just like the right wing sang that Bill Clinton was guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes. And what did they finally get on Bill? Monica.
Christopher H. - , June 15, 2017 at 09:43 AM
They're just lone cranks. If you think they're a disinformation team, you're paranoid. There are a lot of crazy people out there. If you don't understand that fact you need to get out more.

EMichael and PGL love to scold the cranks as much as possible b/c it makes their establishment line sound reasonable. I agree with you. I just ignore them. At least they're keeping busy instead of harassing people offline.

Christopher H. - , June 15, 2017 at 09:54 AM
BTW, now I think Trump is probably going down. He floats idea of firing Mueller. Mueller tells press they're investigating Trump. Meanwhile the Republicans are passing Trumpcare. Trump is moving to replace Yellen. So Mueller will have this list of things Trump and his campaign did. Will Republicans vote to remove Trump? Will it depend upon how the public reacts?
RC AKA Darryl, Ron - , June 15, 2017 at 09:57 AM
Perhaps they are just attempting to hasten the descent of the Democratic Party establishment consensus towards its inevitable rock bottom, the condition at which all addicts must finally arrive before they are forced to admit that they are the authors of their own failure and the only ones capable of their own rescue.
Christopher H. - , June 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM
To my eyes the Democratic Party establishment consensus doesn't really need much in the way of help. It's pushing on an open door.

Their candidate for Virginia's governor voted for George W. Bush twice?

Their candidate for New Jersey governor is a Goldman Sachs guy?

Way to read the room.

RC AKA Darryl, Ron - , June 15, 2017 at 12:59 PM
Exactly! I am in total agreement with you. We are both meaning the same thing, just framing it differently.
libezkova - , June 15, 2017 at 05:30 PM
My God, way too many neocons here.

[Jun 14, 2017] Are We Nearing Civil War by Patrick J. Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
"... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
"... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
"... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
"... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
"... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
"... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
"... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
"... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
"... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
"... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
"... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
"... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president. Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president. Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

"It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

... ... ...

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

FusionPoweredMeatstick June 13, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT

Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before he was canned.

Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus. Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.

exiled off mainstreet June 13, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our days are numbered.

Realist June 13, 2017 at 7:29 am GMT

Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.

MEexpert June 13, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT

Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.

He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him. He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress, especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.

From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.

Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter. He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run the congressional business.

This cannot last for ever.

hammerfist June 13, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

Great article succinct overview. It's a coup we are witnessing

War for Blair Mountain June 13, 2017 at 9:47 am GMT

Pat

Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending?

War for Blair Mountain June 13, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

@War for Blair Mountain

Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .

The Alarmist June 13, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

" will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."

As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.

KenH June 13, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

@MEexpert

From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.

I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers.

Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has never been his strong suit.

Anonymous June 13, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in Afghanistan and Middle East.

OilcanFloyd June 13, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.

I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as time goes by.

Realist June 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT

It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.

He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.

His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted.

"Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.

Realist June 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT

@Corvinus "Idiot."

At least now you are signing your comments.

gda June 13, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT

@MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he "does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.

One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized as his signature achievement.

You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really want. But its clear you really don't want.

I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency, BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.

bluedog June 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

@Corvinus

And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say, and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000 500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts it could happen here, now who's the idiot?

MEexpert June 13, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT

@gda

How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,

I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into my motives.

One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized as his signature achievement.

All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with savings in material cost and lives.

I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.

Sandy Berger's Socks June 14, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT

So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.

His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.

Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as a snipers nest.

Mika-Non June 14, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

@Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions, government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.

Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.

In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately, their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats? We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.

Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.

anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

The evil empire owes the world a cold refreshing glass of schadenfreude. So, on with it then!!

anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
@exiled off mainstreet Super-Mega-Evil Imperial terrorists supporting terror from all sides. You think the imperial terrorists can be defeated?

anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:32 pm GMT
@MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others to be just that??

The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil.

[Jun 14, 2017] NBC Butchered Putins Thoughtful Responses to Megyn Kelly. Good for Ratings - and Warmongers by Gilbert Doctorow

Notable quotes:
"... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
"... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
"... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
"... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
"... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
"... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
"... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
Jun 08, 2017 | russia-insider.com

An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017 | 7080 90

Dear NBC News Team,

Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.

A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that you put on air for the American audience. ( Watch here, beginning 4 minutes into the program .)

The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.

In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.

Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes, ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.

have a nice day

Gilbert Doctorow

Brussels

Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.

rosewood11 • 6 days ago

The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian" who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides of the oceans.

You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles. Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said. see more

Peter Paul 1950 rosewood11 • 6 days ago

Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ... and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing so ... see more

Peter Paul 1950 • see more

rosewood11 Peter Paul 1950 • 5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right? see more

Peter Paul 1950 rosewood11 • 5 days ago

One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation ... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see more

Richard Burton rosewood11 • 4 days ago

Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

- Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

RussG • 6 days ago

Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya Pypkin • 6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still alive regret.

Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and important things while life was stable and predictable.

Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant. AMHants • 6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:

CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!...

http://themillenniumreport.... Nofearorfavor • 5 days ago

But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts, because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could portend for Americans, is mounting daily...

Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for a journalist this Kelly is!

Strange Quark • 5 days ago

The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist, neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization, outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything anywhere. Robert Keith • 6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular basis it seems.

If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.

disqus_xp4GYx7DZk Robert Keith • 6 days ago

She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... see more

Isabella Jones • 6 days ago

Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".

No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know it already.

The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere. see more

Peter Isabella Jones • 6 days ago

"... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."

*Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd arrived in his 2001 book "Aprčs L'Empire: essai sur la décomposition du systčme américain" ("After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors: https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.

See also his 2003 interview on that topic to Neue Zürcher Zeitung, titled "Das eingebildete Imperium", https://www.nzz.ch/article8... the English translation "The Conceited Empire" is at http://www.countercurrents.... . see more

Isabella Jones Peter • 6 days ago

Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.

We are all wondering, of course "when". ?

It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a massive physical break down and die.

It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when. Nofearorfavor Isabella Jones • 5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...

http://stateofthenation2012...

Pretty sorry ass she is ..

L Garou • 3 days ago NBC/CIA.

Edward Mercer L Garou • 2 days ago

Clarification? see more

L Garou Edward Mercer • 2 days ago

You can't spell M$M without the CIA.

chris chuba • 4 days ago

My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a day with her.

In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings, etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling' as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it. see more

Augustine • 4 days ago

Unlike in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg. see more

Richard Burton • 4 days ago

nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.

Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west.

Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten, they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more

angrywhiteman • 4 days ago

More info on US democracy:

BREAKING : This Powerful Seth Rich Video is GOING VIRAL http://truthfeed.com/breaki...

Voter Fraud Federal Investigator Found Murdered http://yournewswire.com/vot...

"The answer to why Seth Rich was killed, and why he gave to WikiLeaks is now out" https://kauilapele.wordpres...

http://stateofthenation2012... see more

Wanda Gumm • 6 days ago

Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump himself. Playing the Elder.

[Jun 14, 2017] James Clapper as one of instigators of Russiagate and probably one of the architects of color revolution against Trump

Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , June 7, 2017 at 4:01 am

James Clapper, former Director of the CIA who lied directly to Congress about whether it was spying on American citizens has very recently said to the Australian Press Club that "I think you compare the two, that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we're confronting now." and "Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don't know the answer to that. I think it's vital, though, we find that out.".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/james-clapper-says-watergate-pales-in-comparison-with-trump-and-russia-scandal?google_editors_picks=true

You really cannot make this up and be believed.

marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 5:47 am
As has become textbook with modern press roll-overs, they are trying to substitute momentum for evidence, and achieve critical mass without having to cite any real facts you could hang your hat on later. Everyone involved will shake their heads as if coming out of a dream, and say, "Well, we all thought "
J.T. , June 7, 2017 at 6:31 am
Hence the reason why I'm barely following the 'Russiagate' coverage anymore. I realized I was being played, so I left.

[Jun 14, 2017] To say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide for them what is good for America

Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova, June 10, 2017 at 03:22 PM

There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.

First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic bubbles and crashes.

FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".

If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility and might happen within a year, or two:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/jim-rogers-the-worst-crash-in-our-lifetime-is-coming/ar-BBCl6BS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz : " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."

NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our European vassals in check.

He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.

The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.

In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).

For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization) the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.

Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery policy.

The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.

And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks in the past want to cling to power at all costs.

Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))

What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.

Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.

With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".

And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump election.

Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.

Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.

Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.

In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and the situation looks really dangerous.

And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.

So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide for them what is good for America.

The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear what they fighting for in Afghanistan.

Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan. Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.

So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?

EMichael - , June 10, 2017 at 04:24 PM
Do you really think there are many people that are deluded enough to not know who and what you are?

You are a cancer on this blog.

libezkova - , June 10, 2017 at 11:35 PM
William S. Lind on Hillary:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-trump-can-do-for-defense/

"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars, wars we will lose.

Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.

The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states.

The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."

[Jun 13, 2017] Neocons want Trump's removal. And it was them who instigated Russiagate using Gene Sharp recipes of color revolution. Classic, textbook attempt to de-legitimize elections.

Jun 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs , June 12, 2017 at 05:17 PM
Friend says Trump is considering 'terminating' Mueller -
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/friend-trump-terminating-mueller-47996251 via @ABC

A friend of the president says Donald Trump is considering "terminating" special counsel Robert Mueller.

Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy tells Judy Woodruff of "PBS NewsHour": "I think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think he's weighing that option."

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about Ruddy's claims.

Under current Justice Department regulations, such a firing would have to be done by Attorney General Jeff Sessions' deputy, Rod Rosenstein, not the president- though those regulations could theoretically be set aside. ...

---

Top Intel Dem warns Trump: 'Don't waste our time' trying to
remove Mueller http://thehill.com/homenews/house/337517-top-intel-dem-to-trump-dont-waste-our-time-considering-firing-mueller

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fired back at reports that President Trump is considering firing FBI special counsel Robert Mueller with a simple message to the president: "Don't waste our time." ...

Adam Schiff ✔ @RepAdamSchiff

If President fired Bob Mueller, Congress would immediately re-establish independent counsel and appoint Bob Mueller. Don't waste our time.

7:23 PM - 12 Jun 2017

Christopher H. - , June 12, 2017 at 05:34 PM
Trump is cray cray. He is definitely guilty of something big involving Russia. Maybe the Republicans will in fact move to impeach him and we'll get President Pence.
libezkova - , June 12, 2017 at 08:17 PM
IMHO only neocons want Trump's removal. And it was them who instigated Russiagate using Gene Sharp recipes of color revolution. Classic, textbook attempt to de-legitimize elections.

But neocon's Russiagate "color revolution" is very dangerous for the USA move. Which suggests that they lost their minds (which is very true about McCain and Hillary, to name a few).

Please note that in 2014 the USA population was already extremely anti-Russia biased: 64% of BBC poll respondents viewed Russia negatively(not that I trust BBC in this area ;-). But now the percentage might either approach this estimate or be even higher.

This is a recipe for war between those two countries.

BTW neoconservatism is neoliberal interpretation of Trotskyism, which advocates "Permanent War".

Like neofascism it glories militarism (in the form of New American Militarism as described by Professor Bacevich), emphasizes confrontation, and regime change in countries hostile to the interests of global corporation and which are a barrier of spread of neoliberalism and extension of global, US dominated neoliberal empire.

It is extremely jingoistic creed.

[Jun 13, 2017] Comey s memos were exceptions to his standard operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president

www.unz.com

"Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president. Their "revelations" should be accorded extreme skepticism rather than evidentiary weight. He did not inform his superiors after any of the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would have immediately created more distance between him and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark Penn, The Hill]. One of the more entertaining features of the current zeitgeist is that people I heartily dislike keep coming up with perceptive, well-reasoned arguments.

"Amid Comey chaos, lessons from the history of America's secret police" [DigiBoston]. Worth noting that the FBI wasn't always iconic for liberals.

"Why Chris Ruddy floated the idea of firing Bob Mueller" [Chris Cillizza, CNN]. "My (educated) guess is that during his visit to the White House on Monday, Ruddy heard that Trump was considering firing Mueller. Ruddy thought, rightly, that doing so would be an absolutely terrible political move. Rather than calling the President to tell him that, Ruddy took to a medium where he knew Trump would listen: TV. We know from the 2016 campaign that Trump's advisers and friends would use cable television appearances to send messages to Trump that he was simply not hearing in private conversations."

"Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known" [Bloomberg].

"Special counsel team members donated to Dems, FEC records show" [CNN] .

[Jun 13, 2017] Reality Winner throw away her career and life for nothing

Notable quotes:
"... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle. ..."
"... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
"... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
"... He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton. Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge favor or that he could blackmail. ..."
"... He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by a mobsters tool. ..."
"... I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen. ..."
"... Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey. But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated. ..."
Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

XXX

Reality Winner throw away her career and life for nothing--as that NSA memo wasn't a smoking gun and added nothing new (and further evidence that the intelligence community would label a Wikipedia article as "Top Secret")

And Reality had awful/naive "operational security." Anyone who read a few John LeCarre/Tom Clancy novels would've done better at avoiding detection.

JTMcPhee , June 12, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Hey, another gal took a big risk and wound up reasonably comfortable - what was her name, oh yeah, Monica Lewinski or something

Quentin , June 12, 2017 at 4:33 pm

She ended up 'reasonably comfortable'? Your source?

RUKidding , June 12, 2017 at 5:03 pm

What? Monica has not had an easy time of it. Yes, her choice, but still.

I don't see how you come by comparing what Monica Lewinsky did (which in no way compromised state secrets) with what Reality Winner did (I don't think she compromised state secrets, but she published what I thought was called a "Top Secret" document).

Two entirely different things. What's the connection? That they both have lady parts?

Seems like weird slut shaming to me.

Alex Morfesis , June 12, 2017 at 5:39 pm

Her father was a fairly large bundler of donations for the democratic party and her step dad was former head of voice of america she did not grow up in a family with any real financial stress and there has been no suggestion anywhere she has had to wait tables one does not get internships at the wh without some pull

RUKidding , June 12, 2017 at 6:39 pm

What does that have to do with what Reality Winner did? The initiating email in this thread discusses Reality Winner and the issue about her release of a top secret document.

Somehow that devolves into some weird slut shaming of Monica Lewinsky? WTF?

Again: why are we even discussing Monica Lewinsky in a thread that is about Reality Winner?

Very strange vibe going on here, imo.

Skip Intro , June 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.

This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.

In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.

Kim Kaufman , June 12, 2017 at 6:08 pm

And yet Comey said it was definitely hacked by Russians. Odd. No evidence anywhere yet. Is he lying about this? Why?

uncle tungsten , June 12, 2017 at 8:29 pm

He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton. Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge favor or that he could blackmail.

He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by a mobsters tool.

YY , June 12, 2017 at 8:36 pm

I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen.

Plenue , June 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm

"especially the explosive testimony of former FBI director James Comey"

I find this downright amazing. Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey. But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated.

[Jun 13, 2017] Clinton mafia goes va bank

Notable quotes:
"... Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize, also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias, rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write. ..."
Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

"Opinion: 5 alternative plutocrats to run America better than Trump" [ MarketWatch ]. Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Diane Hendricks. Well .

"The 9th Circuit's travel ban ruling declares the president's Twitter feed is a legally binding stream of consciousness" [ Slate ]. But what if it's self-contradictory, as bullshit often is?

"In recent months, leading Democrats from national chairman Tom Perez on down have been unleashing f-bombs, s-bombs and everything in between as they try to rally their party to 'resist.' And New York's junior senator seems to be leading the charge" [ New York Post ]. This descent to the vernacular kinda, sorta worked in 2003-2006 for "foul-mouthed bloggers of the left," as David Broder called them; profanity was a proof of authenticity, of boldness. I doubt that will work for Democrats today.

"Trump voters are more informed about the elites than are the elites about them. Trump voters see the elites on network and cable news and late-night talk shows. They encounter them in the dominant print media. And they take in the elite sensibility through feature films, and television sitcoms and dramas. In contrast, members of the so-called knowledge class seldom acquire more than a passing acquaintance with those in "flyover country," their dismissive term for the approximately 2,600 of 3,100 counties-or 84 percent of the geographic United States- where Donald Trump bested Hillary Clinton. Knowledge of how the other half lives and thinks is one glaring hole of elite education" [ RealClearPolitics ].

" Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize, also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias, rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write.

The Brookings fellows nevertheless insist that career politicians, party officials, policy experts, and lawyers bring knowledge of institutional arrangements, complex trade-offs, and technical detail that are essential to good government." The report: "More professionalism, less populism: How voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it" (PDF) [ Brookings Institute ].

UPDATE "Welcome to the era of the 'bot' as political boogeyman" [Philip Bump, WaPo ]. "These stories, though, including the Daily News's, tend to be embraced for the same reason that Superman's monsters were so chilling: The threat is novel and not well understood. There's another level here, too. Assuming that vocal Trump supporters on social media are not real people reinforces an important political effect as well."

[Jun 13, 2017] NBCs Kelly Hits Putin With a Beloved Canard by Ray McGovern

Notable quotes:
"... "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it." ..."
"... As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. ..."
"... "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. " ..."
"... The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails. ..."
"... In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike. ..."
"... The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
Jun 13, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed

NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.

In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.

For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI and NSA had been "handpicked."

On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.

But those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to repeat the false claim. In comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get."

A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her, replying instead:

"They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."

As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.

"At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis added]

Explaining the Technology

More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions. "

Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing the source of cyber attacks.

"Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can.

"Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. "

Kelly: "Let's move on."

However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).

The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails.

In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.

There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.

The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike.

Strange Oversight

Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?

Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:

BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"

COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."

BURR: "But no content?"

COMEY: "Correct."

BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"

COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."

Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."

Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .

[Jun 13, 2017] I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump treason snipe-hunt comes up empty there can be consequnces

Notable quotes:
"... The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing cover a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is the Democratic Party base from demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens vote for its candidates any more. ..."
"... Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square that she's determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can? ..."
"... Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly step out of the spotlight? ..."
"... Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political dynasty to keep the money machine going? ..."
"... Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House come 2020? I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring chicken, but, y'know, Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan was an old man and senile to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of vicious old geezers who refuse to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain, fer Chrissakes. ..."
Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
ex-PFC Chuck , June 12, 2017 at 5:27 pm

The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing cover a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is the Democratic Party base from demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens vote for its candidates any more.

Gareth , June 12, 2017 at 5:43 pm

I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brain trust that once the great Russian/Trump treason snipe-hunt comes up empty that there will be a whole lot of dejected resistance members out there who will finally realize either that they have been fed a load of crap or, if they truly believe the mythology, that the party leadership was too cowardly to get to the truth. Either way, good luck getting those folks all revved up for 2018.

Code Name D , June 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Worse, what is to keep Trump form going back after the for sedition. And i couldn't say i would disagree eather.

John D. , June 12, 2017 at 6:49 pm

What is Hillary's endgame here, anyway? I had little use for Al Gore back in 2000, but dang if his slinking offstage obediently and meekly and (above all) quietly doesn't look downright dignified compared to HRC's refusal to willfully do the same. And I'm beginning to get the feeling there's more to this than just her ego at work. The possibilities as I see 'em (feel free to add to the list if you wish):

a.) Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square that she's determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can?

b.) Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly step out of the spotlight?

c.) Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political dynasty to keep the money machine going?

d.) Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House come 2020? I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring chicken, but, y'know, Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan was an old man and senile to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of vicious old geezers who refuse to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain, fer Chrissakes.

Hillary doesn't do anything unless she stands to gain something, so I assume she has her reasons for not riding off into the sunset. What are they?

David Carl Grimes , June 12, 2017 at 8:09 pm

I think she has to continue raising her profile and remain in public view. Otherwise her grifting machine grinds to a complete halt. All the people who depend on the Clintons are so numerous, (Podestas, Teneo, all those consultants) that they form their own ecosystem.

[Jun 12, 2017] The Evidence-Free Claims Against Trump and Syria Undermining Peace Efforts and Threatening More Wars by Robert Roth

Notable quotes:
"... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
"... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
"... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
"... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
"... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com
3,500 Words • 19 Comments •

Disinformation and lies have been used to justify the wars on Syria that started in 2011. [1] I explored these in "What's Really Happening in Syria: A Consumer Fraud Lawyer's Mini-Primer" – "the primer" for short – which may be downloaded at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/01/21/m...regon/ ) But lately I've been amazed at the extent to which our entire public discourse now rests on disinformation and lies. This is a broader problem, but it also affects the prospects for peace in Syria, one of several places where U.S./NATO activities heighten the risk of nuclear war. [2] I first became aware of that heightened risk in following US/NATO activities in Ukraine, also widely misrepresented by the media; my work on that matter is posted at https://www.newcoldwar.org/how-obamas-aggression-in-...r-war/ .

I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S. attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over "tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but Russians, Iranians and others operate.

In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan. Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.

The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued " Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though neither of them is credible. [3]

Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse . See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research, May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306 .)

The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,

  • RayMcGovern, The Syrian-Sarin "False Flag" Lesson, (December 13, 2016), http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-sarin-false-fla...23106/ ;
  • Daniel Lazare, Luring Trump into Mideast War (Consortium News, April 8, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/luring-trump-i...-wars/ ;
  • Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi);
  • Robert Parry, Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria (Consortium News, April 5, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-danger...syria/ ;
  • Patrick Henningsen, Reviving the 'Chemical Weapons' Lie: New US-UK Calls for Regime Change, Military Attack Against Syria ( 21st Century Wire, April 4, 2017), http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/04/reviving-the-...syria/ ;
  • The Saker, A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria (April 11, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46845.htm ;
  • Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/ (The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf and the second, an addendum to the first, is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view );
  • aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/ . (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the [UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html .").

But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. [4] See, for example, William Blum, Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Published February 2013, at http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-oth...r-list .

It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued, the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.

Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election. It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then explained the difference between leaking and hacking. [5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/ .

There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern and William Binney observed:

The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha" moment, as President Donald Trump said he had fired FBI Director James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.

That's because Mr. Trump

had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" – like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn. [6] Trumped-up claims against Trump ( May 17, 2017), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed...y.html . For a detailed discussion, see Kenneth W. Starr, "Rosenstein's Compelling Case Against Comey," The Wall Street Journal , May 15, 2017, p. A21.

And there was nothing unlawful, or even wrong, in his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak at the White House. This is, after all, what foreign ministers and ambassadors do – confer with leaders of other nations – but that didn't stop the media and what James Howard Kunstler called "the Lindsey Graham wing of the DeepState" from acting "as if Trump had entertained Focalor and Vepar, the Dukes of Hell, in the Oval Office." [7] A Monster Eating the Nation, http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monster-eati...ation/ (May 19, 2017). And see Ted Van Dyk, "Anti-Trump Democrats Invite Chaos," The Wall Street Journal , May 22, 2017, p. A21.

Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually claim to find, in light of this:

On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. [8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

Or as Mr. Putin himself points out,

today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. [9] Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), Interview with Vladimr Putin by NBC News propagandist Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/valdimir-putins-televised...-2017/ .

Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for 'proving' the Russians hacked." [10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.

Put it all together and you now have "an extraordinary proportion of our public discourse [resting] on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation." [11] Tipping over, By Patrick Lawrence, published by the American Committee for East-West Accord, May 17, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/tipping-over/ . A glaring example is the most recent baseless charge against the Assad government. Of this Patrick Lawrence writes, in part quoting Nation magazine contributing editor and Princeton University professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen:

The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan capital.

I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect, in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment, would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:

"Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,' he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a crematorium,' he said."

Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise, took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:

"The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May 23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign ally, into backing away from him."

Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on the Hudson typically takes.

[As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily Fox News program:]

"The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon. The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."

As Prof. Cohen has said, we're thus creating our own new national security "threat," in that, as Mr. Lawrence put it, we are watching as our 45th president is deposed. [12] Mike Whitney outlines the facts behind the entire Russiagate insanity and presents a detailed analysis connecting a great many dots with specificity in Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State ( May 19, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-cr...state/ ; and see Norman Solomon and Paul Jay (Interview), Warfare State at War with Trump as He Plans Warfare Against Iran (May 22, 2017), http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State...t-Iran .

Andrew C. McCarthy, Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free 'Collusion with Russia' Narrative, The National Review (May 24, 2017), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-...rative , suggests steps to resolve the matter.

There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. [13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation, and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when...s.html ).

Prof. Cohen, frozen out by the mainstream media, summarizes the risks we confront:

[W]e're at, maybe, the most dangerous moment in U.S.-Russian relations, in my lifetime, and, maybe, ever. The reason is, that we're in the new Cold War, by whatever name. We have three Cold War fronts that are fought with the possibility of hot war – in the Baltic region, where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine, where there's a civil and proxy war between Russia and the West, and, of course, in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen. [14] Prof. Cohen discusses these issues with great clarity in an interview posted as Dems crippling Trump's plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions (May 19, 2017) at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/388910-trump-scand...ia-us/ .

Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr. Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:

Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices fresher, more diverse and more agile. [15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .

I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.

In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful combination:

"What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley

The only thing keeping westerners from seeing through the lies that they've been told about Syria is the unquestioned assumption that their own government could not possibly be that evil. They have no trouble believing that a foreigner from a Muslim-majority country could be gratuitously using chemical weapons on children at the most strategically disastrous time possible and bombing his own civilians for no discernible reason other than perhaps sheer sadism, but the possibility that their government is making those things up in order to manufacture consent for regime change is ruled out before any critical analysis of the situation even begins. [16] You Only Hate Assad Because Your TV Told You To (May 27, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47136.htm (first published by 21wire at http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/27/syria-you-onl...ou-to/ ). I found it enormously helpful to read this piece in conjunction with Vanessa Beeley's Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism (May 26, 2016), http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/gaslighting-s...ssism/ .

Unless we can penetrate the resulting fog, we confront the situation described by Tony Kevin:

Under the false and demonizing imagery of "Putin's Russia" which has now taken hold in the United States and NATO world, the West is truly "sleepwalking", as Kissinger, Gorbachev, Sakwa, Cohen and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now, because there are so many irresponsible minor European actors crowding onto the policy stage, and because American policy under recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical perspective where Russia is concerned. [17] Return to Moscow , page 255, citing The Slide Toward War with Russia, editorial in the Nation , 19 October 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-slide-toward-w...ussia/ , and Richard Sakwa, West could sleepwalk into a Doomsday war with Russia – it's time to wake up , The Conversation (UK), https://www.theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk...-59936 .

Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns, stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!

Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).

References

[1] I explored these in "What's Really Happening in Syria: A Consumer Fraud Lawyer's Mini-Primer" – "the primer" for short – which may be downloaded at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/01/21/mini-primer-on-syria-by-former-assist-attorney-general-ny-oregon/ )

[2] I first became aware of that heightened risk in following US/NATO activities in Ukraine, also widely misrepresented by the media; my work on that matter is posted at https://www.newcoldwar.org/how-obamas-aggression-in-ukraine-risks-nuclear-war/ .

[3] Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-international-human-slaughterhouse . See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research, May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report , http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited-syria-slaughterhouse-story/5590306 .)

The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g., RayMcGovern, The Syrian-Sarin "False Flag" Lesson, (December 13, 2016), http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-sarin-false-flag-lesson/223106/ ; Daniel Lazare, Luring Trump into Mideast War (Consortium News, April 8, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/luring-trump-into-mideast-wars/ ; Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-united-states-use-of-force-against-syria-violates-international-law/ (citing interview with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi); Robert Parry, Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria (Consortium News, April 5, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ ; Patrick Henningsen, Reviving the 'Chemical Weapons' Lie: New US-UK Calls for Regime Change, Military Attack Against Syria ( 21st Century Wire , April 4, 2017), http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/04/reviving-the-chemical-weapons-lie-new-us-uk-calls-for-regime-change-military-attack-against-syria/ ; The Saker, A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria (April 11, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46845.htm ; Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_house_fabrications_syrias_alleged_use_of_lethal_gas_20170414/ (The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3/Postol_assessment_041117.pdf and the second, an addendum to the first, is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam16a3F0Wjg/view ); andTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical-attacks-in-syria-is-assad-responsible/ . (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the [UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/habakkuk-on-urgent-need-to-release-test-results-from-porton-down-on-samples-from-khan-sheikhoun-ghouta.html .").

[4] See, for example, William Blum, Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Published February 2013, at http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list .

[5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/ .

[6] Trumped-up claims against Trump ( May 17, 2017), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-trump-russia-phony-20170517-story.html . For a detailed discussion, see Kenneth W. Starr, "Rosenstein's Compelling Case Against Comey," The Wall Street Journal , May 15, 2017, p. A21.

[7] A Monster Eating the Nation , http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monster-eating-nation/ (May 19, 2017). And see Ted Van Dyk, "Anti-Trump Democrats Invite Chaos," The Wall Street Journal , May 22, 2017, p. A21.

[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

[9] Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), Interview with Vladimr Putin by NBC News propagandist Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/valdimir-putins-televised-interview-on-nbc-june-5-2017/ .

[10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.

[11] Tipping over, By Patrick Lawrence, published by the American Committee for East-West Accord, May 17, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/tipping-over/ .

[12] Mike Whitney outlines the facts behind the entire Russiagate insanity and presents a detailed analysis connecting a great many dots with specificity in Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State ( May 19, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ ; and see Norman Solomon and Paul Jay (Interview), Warfare State at War with Trump as He Plans Warfare Against Iran (May 22, 2017), http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State-at-War-with-Trump-as-he-Plans-Warfare-Against-Iran .

Andrew C. McCarthy, Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free 'Collusion with Russia' Narrative, The National Review (May 24, 2017), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-russia-collusion-john-brennan-testimony-how-fight-politicized-narrative , suggests steps to resolve the matter.

[13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation, and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).

[14] Prof. Cohen discusses these issues with great clarity in an interview posted as Dems crippling Trump's plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions (May 19, 2017) at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/388910-trump-scandal-russia-us/ .

[15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .

[16] You Only Hate Assad Because Your TV Told You To (May 27, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47136.htm (first published by 21wire at http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/27/syria-you-only-hate-assad-because-your-tv-told-you-to/ ). I found it enormously helpful to read this piece in conjunction with Vanessa Beeley's Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism (May 26, 2016), http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/gaslighting-state-mind-control-and-abusive-narcissism/ .

[17] Return to Moscow, page 255, citing The Slide Toward War with Russia, editorial in the Nation, 19 October 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-slide-toward-war-with-russia/ , and Richard Sakwa, West could sleepwalk into a Doomsday war with Russia – it's time to wake up, The Conversation (UK), https://www.theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk-into-a-doomsday-war-with-russia-its-time-to-wake-up-59936 .

[Jun 12, 2017] What Happened to Russiagate by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
Apr 18, 2017 | Consortiumnews

Democrats, liberals and some progressives might be feeling a little perplexed over what has happened to Russiagate, the story that pounded Donald Trump every day since his election last November-until April 4, that is.

On April 4, Trump fully capitulated to the neoconservative bash-Russia narrative amid dubious claims about a chemical attack in Syria. On April 6, Trump fired off 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase; he also restored the neocon demand for "regime change" in Syria; and he alleged that Russia was possibly complicit in the supposed chemical attack.

Since Trump took those actions-in accordance with the neocon desires for more "regime change" in the Middle East and a costly New Cold War with Russia-Russiagate has almost vanished from the news.

I did find a little story in the lower right-hand corner of page A12 of Saturday's New York Times about a still-eager Democratic congressman, Mike Quigley of Illinois, who spent a couple of days in Cyprus which attracted his interest because it is a known site for Russian money-laundering, but he seemed to leave more baffled than when he arrived.

Yet, given all the hype and hullabaloo over Russiagate, the folks who were led to believe that the vague and amorphous allegations were "bigger than Watergate" might now be feeling a little used. It appears they may have been sucked into a conspiracy frenzy in which the Establishment exploited their enthusiasm over the "scandal" in a clever maneuver to bludgeon an out-of-step new President back into line.

If that's indeed the case, perhaps the most significant success of the Russiagate ploy was the ouster of Trump's original National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was seen as a key proponent of a New Détente with Russia, and his replacement by General H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite, retired Gen. David Petraeus.

McMaster was viewed as the key player in arranging the April 6 missile strike on Syria and in preparing a questionable "intelligence assessment" on April 11 to justify the rush to judgment. Although McMaster's four-page white paper has been accepted as gospel by the mainstream U.S. news media, its many weaknesses have been noted by actual experts, such as MIT national security and technology professor Theodore Postol.

How Washington Works

But the way Official Washington works is that Trump was made to look weak when he argued for a more cooperative and peaceful relationship with Russia. Hillary Clinton dubbed him Vladimir Putin's "puppet" and "Saturday Night Live" portrayed Trump as in thrall to a bare-chested Putin. More significantly, front-page stories every morning and cable news segments every night created the impression of a compromised U.S. President in Putin's pocket.

Conversely, Trump was made to look strong when he fired off missiles against a Syrian airbase and talked tough about Russian guilt. Neocon commentator Charles Krauthammer praised Trump's shift as demonstrating that "America is back."

Trump further enhanced his image for toughness when his military dropped the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," on some caves in Afghanistan. While the number of casualties inflicted by the blast was unclear, Trump benefited from the admiring TV and op-ed commentaries about him finally acting "presidential."

But the real test of political courage is to go against the grain in a way that may be unpopular in the short term but is in the best interests of the United States and the world community in the longer term.

In that sense, Trump seeking peaceful cooperation with Russia-even amid the intense anti-Russian propaganda of the past several years-required actual courage, while launching missiles and dropping bombs might win praise but actually make the U.S. position in the world weaker.

Trump, however, saw his fledgling presidency crumbling under the daily barrage of Russiagate, even though there was no evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election and there wasn't even clear evidence that Russia was behind the disclosure of Democratic emails, via WikiLeaks, during the campaign.

Still, the combined assault from the Democrats, the neocons and the mainstream media forced Trump to surrender his campaign goal of achieving a more positive relationship with Russia and greater big-power collaboration in the fight against terrorism.

For Trump, the incessant chatter about Russiagate was like a dripping water torture. The thin-skinned Trump fumed at his staff and twittered messages aimed at changing the narrative, such as accusing President Obama of "wiretapping" Trump Tower. But nothing worked.

However, once Trump waved the white flag by placing his foreign policy under the preferred banner of the neoconservatives, the Russiagate pressure stopped. The op-ed pages suddenly were hailing his "decisiveness." If you were a neocon, you might say about Russiagate: Mission accomplished!

Russiagate's Achievements

Besides whipping Trump into becoming a more compliant politician, Russiagate could claim some other notable achievements. For instance, it spared the national Democrats from having to confront their own failures in Campaign 2016 by diverting responsibility for the calamity of Trump's election.

Instead of Democratic leaders taking responsibility for picking a dreadful candidate, ignoring the nation's anti-establishment mood, and failing to offer any kind of inspiring message, the national Democrats could palm off the blame on "Russia! Russia! Russia!"

Thus, rather than looking in the mirror and trying to figure out how to correct their deep-seated problems, the national Democrats could instead focus on a quixotic tilting at Trump's impeachment.

Many on the Left joined in this fantasy because they have been so long without a Movement that the huge post-inaugural "pussy hat" marches were a temptation that they couldn't resist. Russiagate became the fuel to keep the "Movement" bandwagon rolling. #Resistance!

It didn't matter that the "scandal"-the belief that Russia somehow conspired with Trump to rig the U.S. presidential election-amounted to a bunch of informational dots that didn't connect.

Russiagate also taught the American "left" to learn to love McCarthyism since "proof" of guilt pretty much amounted to having had contact with a Russian-and anyone who questioned the dubious factual basis of the "scandal" was dismissed as a "Russian propagandist" or a "Moscow stooge" or a purveyor of "fake news."

Another Russiagate winner was the mainstream news media which got a lot of mileage-and loads of new subscription money-by pushing the convoluted conspiracy. The New York Times positioned itself as the great protector of "truth" and The Washington Post adopted a melodramatic new slogan: "Democracy Dies in Darkness." ran a front-page article touting an anonymous Internet group called PropOrNot that identified some 200 Internet news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other major sources of independent journalism, as guilty of "Russian propaganda." Facts weren't needed; the accused had no chance for rebuttal; the accusers even got to hide in the shadows; the smear was the thing.

The Post and the Times also conflated news outlets that dared to express skepticism toward claims from the U.S. State Department with some entrepreneurial sites that trafficked in intentionally made-up stories or "fake news" to make money.

To the Post and Times, there appeared to be no difference between questioning the official U.S. narrative on, say, the Ukraine crisis and knowingly fabricating pretend news articles to get lots of clicks. Behind the smokescreen of Russiagate, the mainstream U.S. news media took the position that there was only one side to a story, what Official Washington chose to believe.

While it's likely that there will be some revival of Russiagate to avoid the appearance of a completely manufactured scandal, the conspiracy theory's more significant near-term consequence could be that it has taught Donald Trump a dangerous lesson.

If he finds himself in a tight spot, the way out is to start bombing some "enemy" halfway around the world. The next time, however, the target might not be so willing to turn the other cheek. If, say, Trump launches a preemptive strike against North Korea, the result could be a retaliatory nuclear attack against South Korea or Japan.

Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia.

For all his faults, Trump did offer a more temperate approach toward U.S.-Russian relations, which also could have tamped down spending for nuclear and other strategic weapons and freed up some of that money for infrastructure and other needs at home. But that was before Russiagate.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, "America's Stolen Narrative," either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Jun 12, 2017] Russiagate is the way to pressure Trump into abandoning his foreign policy goals and continue Obama neocon foreign policy

Notable quotes:
"... Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat. ..."
"... The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election. ..."
economistsview.typepad.com

John Gruskos June 12, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

Robert Roth is exactly right.

The ridiculous "Russian influence" narrative is a cynical ploy to pressure Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises, and instead wage a counter productive regime change war in Syria.

If Trump is not amenable to pressure, they establishment apparently plans to impeach Trump and use Pence as their tool instead.

Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat.

The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election.

[Jun 12, 2017] Statement Trump is Putins puppet. is a sign of dementia or of a neoliberal MSM presstitute

Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

pgl- , June 10, 2017 at 01:47 AM

Trump is Putin's puppet.
ilsm, June 10, 2017 at 04:28 AM
heh!
Libezkova - , June 10, 2017 at 04:28 AM
"Trump is Putin's puppet."

Looks like you do not have enough IQ to understand that Russiagate is a typical "color revolution" scenario. I am lost. How such a post can correlate with your other posts, where you actually show understanding of complex things (your neoliberal bias notwithstanding)? Incredible! Is there two different PGL here ? Early dementia ?

This is even not funny, because anybody with IQ above 100 understands the POTUS does not matter much in foreign policy. So for Russians the difference is close to zero and risks are high to engage is such a behavior. Actually they probably have much more serious "compromat" on Hillary and, especially, Bill, so Hillary might be preferable to them.

Is it so difficult to understand that POTUS is just a placeholder of minor player, and other "very serious people" determine the US foreign policy.

To say nothing about that evidence is not here, and the whole "Purple revolution" scenario with the key idea of delegitimization of Trump via Russiagate is taken directly from Gene Sharp's book.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/gene-sharp-handbook-nonviolent-resistance-dictators-trump

And Gene Sharp book is not a secret. It is the standard textbook used by the State Department for teaching such things. You can buy it from Amazon:

[Jun 12, 2017] In Praise of Hypocrisy by Masha Gessen

Empire of Lies is a 2008 thriller novel written by Andrew Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha proved to be a real artist in this art.
Notable quotes:
"... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
"... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
"... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
"... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
"... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
"... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
"... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
"... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
"... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
Feb 18, 2017 | nyt.com

Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.

One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won."

In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory in America. This is a good thing.

The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?

The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.

Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers.

Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.

In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles.

This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt.

This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"

To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...

Hungary's PM Viktor Orban praises Trump for saying countries should put their own interests first
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-nationalist-hungary-pm-viktor-orban-praise-america-first-a7542361.html

===

ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:27 PM

I am less worried now we got Trump and not apparatchik (experienced in deep state and catering to Jihadis) Clinton.
ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:25 PM
The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast Asia.

Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.

yuan, February 18, 2017 at 09:36 PM
it's telling that you believe genuine liberalism is positive...
ilsm , February 18, 2017 at 04:45 AM
Vox, what about reporting from a crystal ball requires truth?
Peter K. - , February 18, 2017 at 07:37 AM
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! Hide under your bed.
ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM
Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!

How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM

the dems' deep state have already trodden the Bill of Rights how worse can it get......

fascism is in the US for 8 years or so.

[Jun 11, 2017] Kofi Annan is right - the world's multinationals are abusing transfer pricing to shift the economic rents from these African mines to tax havens in places like Switzerland

Notable quotes:
"... "In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...." ..."
"... Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try and manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system. ..."
Jun 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , June 09, 2017 at 03:38 PM

http://voxeu.org/article/countering-mining-curse

June 9, 2017

Countering the mining curse
By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig

Countries that are rich in natural resources do not always prosper economically. This column uses data on conflict and mineral extraction in Africa to argue that recent rises in mineral prices explain up to a quarter of local conflicts between 1997 and 2010. Mining-induced violence is associated with foreign ownership, although corporate social responsibility policies were associated with less violence. This is relevant to the US debate on whether to scrap the legal requirement to disclose whether products contain conflict minerals....

In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership. Nevertheless, among foreign-owned companies, the ones that operated in the least corrupt countries, and the ones that had corporate social responsibility policies were associated with less violence....

anne - , June 09, 2017 at 03:43 PM
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20150774

June, 2017

This Mine Is Mine! How Minerals Fuel Conflicts in Africa
By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig

Abstract

We combine georeferenced data on mining extraction of 14 minerals with information on conflict events at spatial resolution of 0.5 degree x 0.5 degree for all of Africa between 1997 and 2010. Exploiting exogenous variations in world prices, we find a positive impact of mining on conflict at the local level. Quantitatively, our estimates suggest that the historical rise in mineral prices (commodity super-cycle) might explain up to one-fourth of the average level of violence across African countries over the period. We then document how a fighting group's control of a mining area contributes to escalation from local to global violence. Finally, we analyze the impact of corporate practices and transparency initiatives in the mining industry.

anne - , June 09, 2017 at 04:58 PM
The entire paper is available:

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20150774 .

However, I have only read the abstract and conclusion so far. I will read the entire paper carefully. An assertion that surprised me and for which I have no intuitive explanation is made in the summary:

"In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...."

anne - , June 09, 2017 at 05:27 PM
Kofi Annan is right - the world's multinationals are abusing transfer pricing to shift the economic rents from these African mines to tax havens in places like Switzerland....

[ Perfect, describe the process simply and with no judgmental language so that the process is made clear. No jargon. Understanding before any judgement. ]

Gibbon1 - , June 09, 2017 at 08:52 PM
Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try and manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system.
Christopher H. - , June 09, 2017 at 11:46 PM
easy peasy

[Jun 10, 2017] Comey followed careful plan in leaking memos by Katie Bo Williams

Jun 10, 2017 | www.msn.com

James Comey's release of his memos to The New York Times was a carefully orchestrated act that appeared designed to shield him from any legal repercussions, whistleblower and ethics lawyers say.

While President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, is reportedly preparing a leak complaint against Comey, experts say the fight over Comey's disclosures is more political than legal.

"It's clear that Comey understood the legal principles [protecting disclosures]," said Stephen Kohn, a lawyer who specializes in whistleblower cases.

But, he said, "Trump's lawyer was also smart because he's filing these complaints in places that don't mean anything. It's public relations."

The memos, which Comey wrote to contemporaneously document his encounters with the president, have become a flashpoint in the administration's response to the former FBI director's scathing testimony before a Senate panel Thursday.

In one of the most dramatic moments in Comey's remarks, he revealed that he had provided one of his memos to The New York Times through a trusted friend to prompt the appointment of a special counsel in the bureau's Russia investigation.

Trump on Friday morning branded Comey a "leaker" in a tweet and reports emerged that Kasowitz is planning to file a complaint with the Justice Department Inspector General as well as the Senate.

But the way Comey went about his disclosure makes it very unlikely that he is subject to any legal or administrative penalty, legal experts say.

"So long as he ensured the FBI had its own copy of the memos, and so long as the memos were not classified, Mr. Comey's actions appear to be entirely lawful," said Brad Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security and security clearance law.

[Jun 10, 2017] We actually know nothing. Only rumors (aka fake news ) from neoliberal MSM.

Notable quotes:
"... "We also know that a number of state election officials computers were hacked by Russia " ..."
"... BTW Comey in his testimony blow up the whole neoliberal MSM narrative about Trump betrayal and Russian agents of influence. ..."
Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

kurt , June 09, 2017 at 10:53 AM

We also know for certain that there were numerous violations of the voting rights act due to Crosscheck and other caging operations. We also know that a number of state election officials computers were hacked by Russia - and I have seen the guts of those Diabold machines and even with my limited programing skills I could hack one and cover my tracks.
libezkova, June 09, 2017 at 10:15 PM
"We also know that a number of state election officials computers were hacked by Russia "

We actually know nothing. Only rumors (aka "fake news") from neoliberal MSM.

So I assume that you have access to classified materials and was allowed to discuss them in blogs. Good for you ;-)

BTW Comey in his testimony blow up the whole neoliberal MSM narrative about Trump betrayal and Russian agents of influence.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336960-comey-rips-media-for-dead-wrong-russia-stories

== quote ==

New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.

The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

[Jun 10, 2017] Mike Morells Kill-Russians Advice by Ray McGovern

Notable quotes:
"... Decision Points ..."
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well. ..."
"... As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise. ..."
"... This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed". ..."
Aug 12, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

Published on Friday, by Consortium News Mike Morell's Kill-Russians Advice Washington's foreign policy hot shots are flexing their rhetorical, warmongering muscles to impress Hillary Clinton, including ex-CIA acting director Morell who calls for killing Russians and Iranians by Ray McGovern

33 Comments A closer look at the record of Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, is warranted. (Photo: AP) Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.

My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.

I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

Morell: "Yeah."

Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose? It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."

Peabody award winner Rose - having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking Morell - performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.

This interview , though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and on for 46 minutes).

A Heavy Duty

Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all" memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.

For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points , included a passage the former president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!

In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.

In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."

Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?

High on Morell

Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.

So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his record.

In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time , Morell apologized to former Secretary of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because he went out there and made this case, and we were wrong."

It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and got promoted.

Out of Harm's Way

For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [non-existent] WMD.

Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved wrong - that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth " And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.

In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion.

In Morell's The Great War of Our Time , he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)

When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.

Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President.

'Wisdom' on China

For those who did not make it to the very end in watching the most recent Michael-and-Charlie show, here is an example of what Morell and Rose both seem to consider trenchant analysis. Addressing the issue of U.S. relations with China, Morell described the following as a main "negative:"

"We both have large militaries in the same place on the planet, the Pacific. What does that mean? It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do; it means you have to equip yourself with weapons systems for war against each other, which both of us do; and it means you have to exercise those forces for war against each other, and both of us do. And both sides see all of three of those things. That leads to a natural tension and pulls you apart. "

Those who got to the end of Morell's book had already been able to assimilate that wisdom on page 325:

"The negative side [regarding relations with China] includes the fact that each country needs to prepare for war against each other (because our militaries are in close proximity to each other). Each plans for such a war, each trains for it, and each must equip its forces with the modern weaponry to fight it [leading] to tension in the relationship. "

Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well.

As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

Let the bizarre-ness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. © 2017 Consortium News Ray McGovern Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Dede Aug '16

I will watch for this creep to show up in Clinton's administration as these two seem to be peas in a pod.
Hillary has a hard time relating to normal people on the campaign trail because her center of focus is in foreign policy. It stands to reason that she will want people with the kill instinct around her. Being a neocon at heart, her need for accurate intelligence is small and her desire has always been to go after Iran for Bibi and Russia, well, just because they are the go to enemy.
Russia is standing in the way of taking out Assad and clearing a path through Syria to Iran.
SuspiraDeProfundis Aug '16
Rest assured that is a public official in Russia publicly stated to a national TV audience that Russia needed to start killing Americans so as to send a message, the western media would be in an uproar proclaiming it as a unacceptable provocation.

Entire hours of broadcasts on multiple "News shows" would invite in pundits to make the most dire of pronouncements all concluding this showing Russia as a nation seeking war and conflict.

A simple fact. It is the Government of the USA that is the bully here and that same Government is the greatest threat to world peace on this globe. It is the USA that heads the "Empire of Evil".

planetearth Aug '16
This Morell could use a little dose of his own medicine.
Callmeskeptical Aug '16
PonyBoy

I say, kill Mike Morell and save our treasury trillions.

Careful, Pony. Unless you're an FBI instigator, this suggestion could elicit a visit from that agency.

Siouxrose1 Aug '16
If it weren't for the CIA--an organization that passes out licenses to kill the way the old church of Rome handed out "Indulgences" to its wealthiest donors--someone like Mike Morrell would be forced to find his calling as a street smart serial killer.

"It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

It's important to keep in mind that the CIA constantly manufactures false cases, false flags, bogus assassinations, and that makes lying child's play. One does it enough and their conscience (presuming they had one to begin with) goes cold and callous.

Morrell would be just as comfortable serving Hitler as he would an American dictator or head of state.

Siouxrose1 Aug '16
PonyBoy Advocating violence is never wise.

If there weren't entrenched, empowered interests BENT upon war, maniacal minds like that of Morrell would not be tolerated... nor used.

Someone had to pretend that the false pretexts were true. Imagine if the money spent on searching for weapons they KNEW didn't exist instead went to improving life for citizens of the targeted nations? But then, there'd be no terrorism; and without terrorism, how could the now gargantuan military infrastructure aimed at controlling citizens (as the global elites tighten the fiscal screws) come into place?

These professional cons and killers (like felons placed into jail cells where they learn from others how to improve "their craft") gained much from the writings of Goebbels. There must be an outside enemy threat made existentially real... and then, all Constitutional liberties can be rescinded under the guise of protecting citizens.

Notice all the recent terrorist events. Some are no doubt real; but others are false flags and the net impact of all of this is that the entire world is now perceived (by the spooks and the Pentagon) as a battleground.

And when there are vast, well-organized armies, it creates on the part of those brave enough to resist, ingenious forms of asymmetric warfare. Therefore, more and more unexpected places will indeed blow up. Meanwhile, how much $ is dumped into surveillance which NEVER stops these events? I guess the uniformed spooks are too busy in forums like this one, watching the Left (intellectuals, poets, labor leaders, and those who refuse to see things the way elites intend for citizens to see things) and/or watching porn... to notice.

Welcome to theater of the absurd. It's everywhere these days!

George_III Aug '16
This bloke is a terrorist by anybody's dictionary definition. Simple.

The last person who thought that killing Russians was a good idea ended up committing suicide just before the Russians got to his bunker in Berlin. This Morrell character would have us all commit nuclear suicide so as to fulfill his insane fantasy.

Siouxrose1 Aug '16
SuspiraDeProfundis Have you seen this material? It's very compelling: WORLD IS ON FIRE Dr Paul Craig Roberts
Lorenzo_LaRue Aug '16
PonyBoy One stupid (C)ommittee to (I)ntervene (A)nywhere dick dead, wow. How about 'kill' the Pentagon which seems to be the root of the problem? Not a person but the whole phkn deal. All those folks could 'maybe' just go 'get a life' instead of being terminal perverts.
Callmeskeptical Aug '16
Siouxrose1:

Have you seen this material? It's very compelling:

Yes. This particular interview includes much of what PCR has been discussing for the past many months. I'm surprised, though, that he left out specifically discussing the U.S. government's war against alternate currencies to the dollar that resulted in the destruction of Libya (and the death of Gaddafi) and now all of the covert and overt actions against the BRICS governments.

Articles addressing these continuing issues are normally first published on the following sites:

CounterPunch 3
Global Research 1
Paul Craig Roberts 3
The Saker 2
The Duran 3

Clovis Aug '16
Will we ever be rid of these psychopaths?
bushrodl Aug '16
Will the real villain please stand up? And they all stood!
stiffupperflipflop Aug '16 1
Dede

He may end up paired up with Ted Cruz as Secretaries of State and Defense. Improbable? Not to me. Is anything improbable any more?

It used to be that people in positions in the State and Defense Departments may have been murdering perceived enemies of the State, but they didn't go speaking out about it publicly. They tried to maintain the image that the USA only killed in self defense like the white hat heroes of the old cowboy movies, Roy Rogers and all like that, where the black hat bad guys always had to reach for their " shooting irons' first so they could be plugged fair and square.

That ethic is long gone and was probably never real but the idea was maintained. But now we have President BO not exactly bragging about his "drone kill list" but not in any way distancing himself from public knowledge of it either. Kissengerian "realpolitik" and Big Henry is HRC's hero and role model so she is positioned to become the Murder Mama of the west, ready to show them Chinese and Ruskies who's ready to be fastest straight shootin'ist gun slinger in the global town Main Street with Cruz and Morrell at her flanks like the Earp Brothers at the OK Corral with Doc Holliday Kissinger limping along right there with 'em

natureboy Aug '16
The fact that murderous authoritarian conservatives get ahead in government and business far better than peace loving, egalitarian liberals, says a lot about the American psychic.
Dede Aug '16
stiffupperflipflop

They don't feel they have to hide their true intentions like they used to.

Hillary is barely hiding her lust for power and the wars she wants to make. The Republicans have never tried to hide it.

Siouxrose11 Aug '16
Clovis The issue is not so much to be rid of them, but rather not to sustain a legal, financial, cultural, political, and tactical infrastructure that REWARDS them and counts on them to effortlessly enact the dirty work of Empire.

Essentially, the Shock Doctrine handbook might as well define "sociopath" as a required bona fide in the career search for the right candidates.

Siouxrose11 Aug '16
natureboy:

says a lot about the American psychic

To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions of influence) and why. There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered positions onto The People.

The Page and Gilens Study made it clear that The People's Will is NOT what those in government positions institute.

Find any long-sustained society on this planet (since the onset of patriarchy) that doesn't evidence a political/social/economic hierarchy?

The most egalitarian nations, Europe's social Democracies have hardly achieved full Democratic representation or full equality but they go much further than "political business as usual" within the U.S.

The bottom line is that in most nations there have been long-established family dynasties. And when 50 people hold half the nation's wealth or even half the world's wealth, there is no possible way that ordinary citizens can direct policies.

This much concentrated wealth taints all systems of would-be Democratic representation.

And the problem didn't arise overnight. It's been long-standing.

Our own nation has only enjoyed short periods where power, privilege, and economic opportunity were somewhat widely shared. To the Black community that marker is yet to be realized and ditto for many Hispanics and women.

Nonetheless, the elites like shadowy creatures built up their think tank influence in the shadows and patiently dismembered the New Deal piece by piece over the course of the past 3-4 decades.

When processes are done by stealth and through gradual accommodation, and when the mass media's "experts" all lie about what's going on, and when false flags are used to decimate civil liberties and to justify massive crackdowns on citizens... I think those persons enacting these strategies should be held as the accountable parties... rather than those being done unto.

I mean how different is this castigation than that which justifies the violence on the part of the white police officer when he and his gang of Neanderthals let loose with premeditated deadly force against a Black kid or man who is unarmed?

How different is if from the mindset that knocks down the doors of families living in their own nations! In Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... and then if someone gets shot, it's the fault of those under attack?

This is the mindset of the rapist/dominator. It has NO place in a would-be Progressive forum yet I come up against it daily. That is why I am SURE that many who post here (with regularity under a constantly changing BATTERY of screen names) are in the military or otherwise in some branch of its now farmed out "Intelligence-gathering" Hydra.

natureboy Aug '16
Siouxrose11 :
natureboy:

says a lot about the American psychic

To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions of influence) and why.

There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered positions onto The People.

The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise.

sierra Aug '16
The only word description I have of Charlie Rose is, "smarmy"......politically smarmy...ok, two words.

peace

sierra Aug '16
SuspiraDeProfundis

"Killing Russians"....wasn't that the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski's Afghanistan doctrine?

And we all know how well that went!!!!!!!
peace

sierra Aug '16
Siouxrose1 Destroy the CIA and one takes "one step" towards dismantling the National Security State and the "Deep State"
peace
Siouxrose11 Aug '16
sierra How could anyone destroy the CIA? It's like roaches hiding behind the woodwork.

Besides, any position that advocates a violent solution adds to the problem of violence in this world.

I am waiting for Lofgren's book on the Deep State. I ordered a paperback copy back in January not realizing that it would not be published till this coming September.

I am well-aware of the Deep State and its relationship to NSA and CIA and lots more.

Psychedelic_Chicken Aug '16
This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed".

But hey, I'm one of those tin foil hat wearing Truthers. Excuse me for questioning these jerks all of these years later.

George_III Aug '16
natureboy It's the human "psyche". Greed unifies, but ideals fragment as each idealist tries to demonstrate how perfect they are in contrast to the other idealists.

[Jun 10, 2017] Comey and Mueller Russiagates Mythical Heroes

Notable quotes:
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"... Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself. ..."
"... My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory ..."
"... So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers. ..."
"... He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack. ..."
"... Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui." ..."
"... To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11! ..."
"... The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this. ..."
"... March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley ..."
"... Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. ..."
"... Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following: ..."
Jun 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.

Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.

TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the 9/11 Commission eventually concluded, "that the system had been blinking red ." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI agent witness termed " criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner. (Some failures were never fixed at all.)

Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten "war on terror," which only served to exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .

Unfulfilled Promise

I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.

A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.

Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists .

A History of Failure

Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.

Current media applause omits the fact that former FBI Director Mueller was the top official in charge of the Anthrax terror fiasco investigation into those 2001 murders , which targeted an innocent man (Steven Hatfill) whose lawsuit eventually forced the FBI to pay $5 million in compensation. Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.

Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."

The Comey/Mueller Myth

What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.

The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.

Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

ORDER IT NOW

Neither Comey nor Mueller - who are reported to be " joined at the hip " - deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence.

It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

Coleen Rowley , a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled " Questions for the FBI Nominee " was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing. This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington Post page.

Dan Hayes June 9, 2017 at 3:46 am GMT

As Colleen Rowley has so thoroughly and unequivocally demonstrated here, both Comey and Mueller are living examples of the Peter Principle (that managers rise to the level of their incompetence).

exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best and most respected legal experts, Comey may have violated the law using his professor friend to leak what he thought was an incriminating memorandum documenting Trump's "hope" that he would lay off Flynn because Flynn was a "good guy." Even torture advocate Dershowitz, who, for his obvious faults, is a talented lawyer, indicates that it is preposterous to call this "obstruction of justice" when Trump had the power to pardon anybody. Meanwhile, the fact that Comey didn't find it necessary to document his interrogation of the harpy on the "matter" of her email server reveals that he seemed totally willing for justice to be obstructed in a more obvious fashion if he was on board with those doing the obstructing. It also came out that some of his testimony today appears to contradict statements he made under oath to Senator Grassley in a hearing dated May 3.

Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself.

Bill Jones Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

Excellent piece. Not a dam word I can find fault with.

Carlton Meyer Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory

There are now lots of current news stories of Feinstein and open coup plotter Schumer excited about Muller's appointment to convict Trump for something. This from her own website:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=FEA7C76A-E029-49AF-98F2-5446AABFAD22

May 17 2017

Washington-Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel: "The appointment of Bob Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation is a good first step to get to the bottom of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to the president.

"Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there's no better person who could be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and ability to do the right thing."

I did find this from 1998:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/U-S-Attorney-Yamaguchi-Announces-Resignation-3000301.php

"In announcing his resignation, Yamaguchi said Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint Robert Mueller, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, as interim U.S. attorney. He is currently chief of the homicide division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. Mueller has spent almost his entire career as a federal prosecutor, doing both civil and criminal work in the San Francisco district and then moving to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston. He eventually joined the Justice Department, where he was an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division."

So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers.

Mueller went on to play key roles in the PanAm Lockerbie coverup and the 9-11 ruse, despite this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/692291/posts

"Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11. But they said a review of his public remarks about the Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies."

In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or a lack of information that I subsequently got."

He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui."

To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11!

Yes, all corruption in DC eventually becomes a 9-11 thread.

DanCT Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this.

Also, Colleen Rowley mentions that Meuller ignored his FBI agents' warnings about not going along with CIA torture overseas, yet there is reason to believe that FBI agents were in fact sent overseas to coordinate this activity with the CIA and Mossad.

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley

Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked.

http://www.4thmedia.org/2017/03/cia-leak-russian-election-hackers-may-work-in-langley/

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

MarkinLA Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT

I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.

What is wrong with this sentence?

Che Guava Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

This was an interesting article.

Counterpunch does publish many interesting articles, once upon a time, I was to considering subscription to the print edition, but no credit card, and the 80 to 90% idiocy on the site, The article at the link below is not unrepresentative, though it is at the bottom end of the scale.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/09/lessons-from-portlands-clashes-with-fascists

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate

Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

Jan 2, 2017 CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT

@Che Guava This is another good read Che Guava. November 07, 2016 FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges

But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received $467,500. FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-director-james-comey-no-evidence-of-hillary-wrong-doing-but-who-conducted-the-investigation-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-bribed-whose-wife-received-467000/5555398

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer This a very good read on the 9/11 event. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414

Julius Evola Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

Get a life!

Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT

@MarkinLA I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.

What is wrong with this sentence? Actually what is right about your post ia that it draws attention to the likelihood that the President would have recordings of all such conversations (not ones when he says "come for a walk with me while I stretch my legs in the garden") and that, anyway, a canny fellow like Comey would assume so and, accordingly, make notes immediately afterwards to ensure that he was right on all the key points. Which all leads to the conclusion that recordings would bear out Comey.

Priss Factor Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

Deep State messes up and sheeple run wild.

Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:34 pm GMT

@Agent76 As a big factor in Comey's thinking just before the election when new material possibly pertinent to Clinton's irregullarities came to FBI attention would have been his own self interest it seems reasonable to suppose that both his embarrassment of Clinton by his communication to Congress and his exoneration of her were part of a process which began with "how bad could it be for me if Clinton wins [as I sulppose she will] and something really bad turns up from the investigation of the emails?". Then, given it was true, the exonerating statement is a no brainer (he restores his position as well as he can with Clinton in case she wins and he inly diminishes his credit with Trump slightly if Trumo wins).

Mulegino1 Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT

The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following:

  • Believers in the ridiculous official narrative of the 19 miracle working Jihadist amateur pilots and hydrocarbon based office fires.
  • Those who maintain that the Bush Administration was "incompetent" and that it "ignored the warnings."
  • The LIHOP crowd- Bush and Cheney deviously let it happen on purpose.

Robert Muller's role has nothing to do with being an impartial prosecutor but about being a "fixer" in proper Washingtonian parlance. He was probably brought into the FBI to insure a foreordained "slam dunk" verdict that 19 Arab amateur pilots hijacked 4 airliners led by a deathly ill man living in a cave, performed miraculous feats of aviation which would have made Waldo Pepper envious and violated the laws of physics all in one day. Now he is serving another purpose for his string pullers in the deep state by torpedoing Trump.

As Conan-Doyle wrote, "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Office fires, nor jet fuel, nor building collapses or aircraft impacts will not cause hundreds of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete to undergo molecular dissociation and turn into dust clouds. They generally do not cause the metal components of vehicles in the vicinity to be destroyed while their non-metallic components remain intact. Neither will conventional explosives or even nano-thermite. The destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2 and the core of WTC 6 was not caused by any of these things alone. WTC 7 may have been a case of conventional controlled demolition, but the idea that it experienced universal failure and collapsed into its footprint because of "raging fires" is too stupid for words.

It is O'Brien holding up the three fingers and torturing Winston into seeing two – except that a good part of our public accepts their masters' voice willingly and enthusiastically, even today in 2017.

geokat62 Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT

@Mulegino1

The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following:

Not sure anyone would accuse Philip Giraldi (former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the CIA) of someone who is "within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult":

If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago .

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/do-high-level-leaks-suggest-a-conspiracy/

[Jun 09, 2017] Tucker Carlson Lays Waste to Comeys Testimony and Democrat Attempt to Unseat the President

Notable quotes:
"... Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot, helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their fucking mind. ..."
"... He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which was confirmed by Comey today. ..."
"... Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate. ..."
"... This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government by the deep state, media and uniparty ..."
"... So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection. ..."
"... Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email investigation. Why would he do that? ..."
"... Comey took notes because he planned to blackmail Trump in the future just like J Edgar Hoover did when he ran the FBI. ..."
"... "Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments. I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist psychopaths. It's that simple. ..."
"... Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. ..."
"... Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts ..."
"... Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA. ..."
"... Not one coward on that Senate committee had the balls to ask about the Seth Rich investigation........disappointing ..."
"... Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election. Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing. ..."
"... The threat of being "Clintoned" is a powerful force. ..."
Jun 08, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

There will come a day when the city square will be packed with gibbets filled with swinging heads of traitorous bastard commies -- most readily found in leftshit cities. The degeneracy must end. Today's testimony by Comey was a farce, a transparent attempt by a spent and bitter bureaucrat trying to hurt a sitting President.

Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot, helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their fucking mind.

Tucker chimes in and reviews the day's events, pointing out the hypocrisy of Comey and his dealings with AG Lynch, who asked for Comey to word the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal as a 'matter.' If that's not collusion and political pressure on the FBI, nothing is.

He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which was confirmed by Comey today.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tHtP2gQIoCE

rosiescenario , Jun 9, 2017 12:31 PM

After watching this political circus it is very clear that no one should be re-elected from either party, with the single exception of Paul.

Looks like what we really need is a new political party that actually serves the public tax payers, unfortunately it may take a major financial depression and its accompanying turmoil to bring that about.

Blazing in BC , Jun 9, 2017 12:25 PM

He seems to have blown his lead, I mean load, to no avail.

mary mary , Jun 9, 2017 12:14 PM

IMHO, the Comey hearing was John McCain's chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. I think his idea to go after Comey's interactions with the Obama regime was a great idea, but he came unprepared and unrehearsed. McCain had an opportunity to display leadership, but he failed to lead.

SummerSausage - mary mary , Jun 9, 2017 12:38 PM

Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate.

It's time 81 year old McCain - last in his Naval Academy class - shuffled off to an assisted living center in Arizona.

Tortuga , Jun 9, 2017 11:39 AM

These paris, comey, collusion, russki hoaxes are for 1 reason only; distraction to delay the "hanging".

http://skylarkutilities.com/video/watch/vid01SzjDOwbt8S8

SummerSausage , Jun 9, 2017 11:03 AM

Great post, as usual, Fly.

Comey created a memo because it's hard to leak to multiple sources at one time in person.

We're living history folks. This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government by the deep state, media and uniparty dominated by leftojihadis. The Gang of 8 is composed of 4 dimocrites and 4 rinos. The rinos had a duty to come forward and not only refute the lies in the media but to reveal it all as a hoax. Only Nunes told President Trump what was going on and he was forced to recuse himself from the intelligence committee investigation.

Even an atheist has to admit there's divine intervention at work here. Flawed though he admits to be, Trump is being guided and protected by a force more powerful than the swamp.

markar , Jun 9, 2017 10:22 AM

So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection.

Jim in MN - markar , Jun 9, 2017 10:34 AM

So he can quietly wander over and start pulling the illegal wiretap files that the Obama Stasi were compiling. Other than that, no point.

SummerSausage - Jim in MN , Jun 9, 2017 10:43 AM

But Mueller won't. He & Comey are besties of 25 year standing. All Mueller will do it find no direct links between the Russians and Trump or his administration but justify Comey's investigation by saying the Russians are bad, evil people who were trying to co-opt naive and inexperienced Trump colleagues.

If they wanted an honest and truthful investigation they would not have selected a retired swamp general.

ClowardPiven2016 - PitBullsRule , Jun 9, 2017 10:49 AM

It scares me that people actually believe this shit. I guess we are doomed considering how many morons like PitBullsRule are lapping up the koolaid with their heads in the sand

barysenter - PitBullsRule , Jun 9, 2017 10:18 AM

Reality doesn't conform to your expectations much? HA HA

Northern Flicker , Jun 9, 2017 9:44 AM

Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email investigation. Why would he do that?

Comey's (limited hangout) strategy: Say a few things to look honest, so he could sell "the Russians did it (hack)" - despite showing no evidence. Otherwise, there would be no need for a Special Counsel and he knows Mueller will forment more troubles for Trump, perhaps for years. Trump needs to end this Russian hack nonsense ASAP.

Tachyon5321 , Jun 9, 2017 8:51 AM

Comey took notes because he planned to blackmail Trump in the future just like J Edgar Hoover did when he ran the FBI.

Kayman - Tachyon5321 , Jun 9, 2017 9:47 AM

Comey wouldn't state, "We are not investigating you, Mr. President." Yet....

Downtoolong , Jun 9, 2017 8:44 AM

I'd like Loretta Lynch to show me where in the FBI handbook it explains the proper procedure for conducting "matters".

They just make shit up to suit their needs. The Comey incident is another sad example of how every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the point they can no longer perform their intended function.

SummerSausage - Downtoolong , Jun 9, 2017 10:55 AM

The law does not allow subpeonas or grand juries based on "matters" - only valid "investigations".

Tell me how that is not Lynch & Comey colluding to interfere in the election and obstruct justice. I'm willing to listen with an open mind.

adanata - Downtoolong , Jun 9, 2017 9:51 AM

"Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments. I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist psychopaths. It's that simple.

SoDamnMad - Downtoolong , Jun 9, 2017 9:26 AM

"how every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the point they can no longer perform their intended function" and should therefore be disbanded. Fixed it for you.

GotAFriendInBen , Jun 9, 2017 8:26 AM

Repeat lies often enough and they become the truth

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyer-cites-questionable-timeline-dis...

Reaper , Jun 9, 2017 8:24 AM

Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. Trump's possible recording constrained Comey's M.O..

scoutshonor , Jun 9, 2017 7:43 AM

Nobody will do anything about any of this. Time to shitcan the lot of them. I hope not a single doofus up for re-election goes back to D.C. in '18.

It's hard to know which to slap first, those that break the law out in the open--or those that turn a blind eye to the flagrant lawlessness of the trangressors.

This is some weak-ass tea.

Thom Paine , Jun 9, 2017 7:35 AM

Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts I think.

  • He admitted leaking FBI information to the media
  • He admitted leaking FBI information to the media in order to have an effect on the country (ie a counsel)
  • He admitted he was concerned enough with his meeting with Trump to make a memo of it - instead of going to the DOJ as required by law
  • He admitted he was concerned with Lynch telling him to not use the word investigation (which was the truth) and agreeing to it, instead of resigning or reporting it.
  • He demonstrates that he leaked information to the media, but not the truth that Trump was not under investigation - thus showing politcal bias in his job.

There are a few crimes there that I gather the DOJ has no option but to prosecute, how can it not? Since they are also prosecuting Winner for the exact same thing?

Jim in MN - Thom Paine , Jun 9, 2017 10:31 AM

He stole government property (the memos).

boattrash - Thom Paine , Jun 9, 2017 8:04 AM

All good points you listed, yet the fucker didn't see the need to take notes during the 4th of July weekend interview of Hillary? WTF?

Kayman - boattrash , Jun 9, 2017 9:45 AM

Why would Comey make notes of receiving payment from the Clinton Foundation?

SummerSausage - Kayman , Jun 9, 2017 11:07 AM

It's all here http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788

Comey got rich covering up for the Clintons and swamp rats.

SithApprentice , Jun 9, 2017 7:23 AM

Comey thought he would be the next J Edgar Hoover and now he is unemployed and hopefully a pariah. Two-faced ass.

New_Meat - SithApprentice , Jun 9, 2017 8:40 AM

with a $10MM book advance

gregga777 , Jun 9, 2017 6:52 AM

Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey said that he behaved 'slightly cowardly'. Well, that is the sort of behavior one expects from a Weasel.

[No insults intended to the small mammals grouped together in the weasel family.]

DarkestbeforeDawn , Jun 9, 2017 6:25 AM

Tucker distills gale wind force BS into an easily digestible summary. I'd watch him live every night, but I don't watch TV anymore

alphasammae , Jun 9, 2017 12:17 AM

Great review Tucker Carlson! Comey is a disgruntled loser like Killary. Comey never followed up on Seth Rich murder, a more serious matter than playing stupid politics.

Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA.

gregga777 - alphasammae , Jun 9, 2017 6:55 AM

Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey was actively covering up for the murderers who murdered Seth Rich and the people who hired them. He should be shitting whole goats knowing that Attorney General Sessions seized everything in his office while he was in LACALIFUSA. Comey will probably be joining Obama shortly wherever it is that he is hanging out overseas.

Bytor325 - alphasammae , Jun 9, 2017 5:59 AM

Not one coward on that Senate committee had the balls to ask about the Seth Rich investigation........disappointing

francis_the_won... - Bytor325 , Jun 9, 2017 9:27 AM

Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election. Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing.

Got The Wrong No - Bytor325 , Jun 9, 2017 6:17 AM

The threat of being "Clintoned" is a powerful force.

[Jun 09, 2017] Busy, busy Russian hackers; theyre everywhere.

Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
kirill , June 7, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Inquiry makes it sound like an actual investigation. WTF could the FBI do in a couple of days. Just look at the IPs recorded in the computer logs. Well, fuckwads and assorted sheeple, those IP numbers prove FUCK ALL.
marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 10:45 pm
Busy, busy Russian hackers; they're everywhere. Maybe they will hack my bank and make me a wealthy, wealthy man. I promise it wouldn't change me.

[Jun 09, 2017] Reality Check Suggests that Reality Winner is probably a patsy; also Reality Winner vs. Comey

Lesbian bodybuilder, "Black lives Matter" enthusiast, who claims "being white is terrorism" managed to get top security clearance. Something is fishy here.
Notable quotes:
"... With the announcement that 25-year old "Reality Winner" (no, really) had been arrested for stealing and leaking top secret documents, it became clear to us that a near and dear friend who was very ill for a very long time had finally been pushed over the brink: we regret to say that Satire is dead . ..."
"... Start with her name: "Reality Winner." Then let's tick off the other boxes: lesbian bodybuilder, ardent Bernie Sanders supporter, a "Black Lives Matter" enthusiast who (though white herself) argues that "Being white is terrorism." A woman whose social media posts include referring to the President of the United States as a "piece of shit" and the "Tangerine in chief," who additionally declares that in a war between the US and Iran, she'll side with Iran. ..."
"... And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials. Which raises two very troubling questions: just what in blazing Hell does someone have to do to not get a security clearance, and how many other angry, ignorant, communist-leaning, anti-American social justice warriors are currently embedded in (and sabotaging) our intelligence agencies?! ..."
"... "And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials." Can you say "P A T S Y"? As in fall guy...er...gal? ..."
"... Manchurian lesbian bodybuilder. MK-Ultrabot. ..."
"... FBI CIA NSA a complete joke......you really cant blame Reality there even Comey is a leaker himself lol ..."
"... So why is it illegal when Winner leaks, and legal when a high US official like Comey does the same? ..."
"... She likely was a plant assigned there to leak top secret info. Paid to? ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by via Stilton's Place blog ,

With the announcement that 25-year old "Reality Winner" (no, really) had been arrested for stealing and leaking top secret documents, it became clear to us that a near and dear friend who was very ill for a very long time had finally been pushed over the brink: we regret to say that Satire is dead .

Because seriously, when a story gets this "in your face" ridiculous - what details are left for us to push to humorous extremes?!

Start with her name: "Reality Winner." Then let's tick off the other boxes: lesbian bodybuilder, ardent Bernie Sanders supporter, a "Black Lives Matter" enthusiast who (though white herself) argues that "Being white is terrorism." A woman whose social media posts include referring to the President of the United States as a "piece of shit" and the "Tangerine in chief," who additionally declares that in a war between the US and Iran, she'll side with Iran.

And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials. Which raises two very troubling questions: just what in blazing Hell does someone have to do to not get a security clearance, and how many other angry, ignorant, communist-leaning, anti-American social justice warriors are currently embedded in (and sabotaging) our intelligence agencies?!

We're guessing the number to be terrifyingly high, but can't know for sure because trying to find out would require functional intelligence agencies. And that ship, like Satire, has sailed.

E-Knight •Jun 9, 2017 10:54 AM

Yet another victim to the hyper neo-liberal propaganda...sad.

Pure Evil -> Erek •Jun 9, 2017 11:05 AM

If she hates white people. Why didn't she at least get a tan to cover up all that white skin? Dye her hair black and put it in a fro? Learn Ebonics and talk street?

Lesbian bodybuilder, that's so white bread.

Cognitive Dissonance -> Pure Evil •Jun 9, 2017 11:34 AM

"And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials." Can you say "P A T S Y"? As in fall guy...er...gal?

Urban Roman -> Cognitive Dissonance •Jun 9, 2017 11:57 AM

Manchurian lesbian bodybuilder. MK-Ultrabot.

Manipulism •Jun 9, 2017 10:57 AM

As George Webb said, they had a contest for this job and she was the Winner.

Herd Redirection... -> Manipulism •Jun 9, 2017 11:15 AM

She just comes across as some sort of golem. A figment of someone's iMAGInation.

CosmoJoe -> Kreditanstalt •Jun 9, 2017 11:56 AM

It could be argued that Edward Snowden did the country a service. What did this dummy really do? And it is one thing to do something for love of country that gets you into trouble, but this idiot clearly has no love *at all* for this country or the people that live here. Side with Iran? Seriously?

This dumb bitch (and I use the term loosely) has a serious libtard brain disease.

Piranha •Jun 9, 2017 11:02 AM

FBI CIA NSA a complete joke......you really cant blame Reality there even Comey is a leaker himself lol

Smedley's Butler •Jun 9, 2017 11:02 AM

It was disclosed in court yesterday that she also had a thumbdrive full lof data, not just the 5 page document. This thumbdrive will reveal secrets about the NGA program as well as (false) evidence of Russian hacking that will be tied back to witness testimony by compromised hackers being held by the FBI. Impeachment to follow.

This story is much bigger, and just a part of yesterday's play.

Son of Captain Nemo •Jun 9, 2017 11:19 AM

After 9/11, followed by Bill Binney, Tom Drake and Russell Tice the new ship sailed... and it WILL NEVER be anything but a source for "do whatever they want you to do in completing the mission(s)" as the only brain trust(s) that mattered vacated after that "LAST MOST IMPORTANT NAIL" hit the coffin!

Rinse and repeat for DOD with the likes of Hugh Shelton, Tommy (aw shucks) Franks, Martin Dempsey and of course MAD "mad dog" they had to "scrape the scrape" off the bottom of the barrel to find... In hindsight we should have had the "watershed" long before September 11, 2001 as the "professionals" in the intelligence community were seeing how bad it was getting before the Gulf War.

Followed by the road to nowhere in the Balkans when in fact they knew that NATO should have been irrelevant by 1999 with it's losses! If there is any redeeming feature to the statements Miss Reality probably never made I would concur with her position on Iran!

Too bad she doesn't feel the same way about Russia but then again I'm about 99.99999% sure all of her statements came from somewhere else.

Lea •Jun 9, 2017 11:05 AM

So why is it illegal when Winner leaks, and legal when a high US official like Comey does the same?

quesnay -> Lea •Jun 9, 2017 11:34 AM

Because the US is now a third-rate banana republic. Consistency of law is for civilized societies, the company of which we left some time ago.

Trifecta Man Jun 9, 2017 11:06 AM

She likely was a plant assigned there to leak top secret info. Paid to?

kidinwyoming -> Trifecta Man Jun 9, 2017 12:09 PM

Comey exonerated Trump. This is about keeping the pressure on Russia now.

Thom Paine Jun 9, 2017 11:07 AM

I think Loretta Lynch may also get a Reality Check before Congress now.

[Jun 09, 2017] James Comey Admits He Leaked Information To Media by sundance

Notable quotes:
"... This behavior clearly indicates that James Comey was a political animal first and foremost, who politicized and weaponized the FBI to his own personal and institutional benefit. ..."
Jun 08, 2017 | theconservativetreehouse.com
Good grief is this man absorbed with his own need for attention.

Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted today that he was a direct source for leaking information to the media through a friend of his, a professor at Columbia University.

This behavior clearly indicates that James Comey was a political animal first and foremost, who politicized and weaponized the FBI to his own personal and institutional benefit.

watch-v=l0Wt33_UWPE

[Jun 09, 2017] Can Qatar Negotiate a Diplomatic Resolution with Its Neighbors

Notable quotes:
"... This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. ..."
"... Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The measures that the Saudis and company are taking today are much more significant. In addition to calling their diplomats home, the anti-Qatar reprisals include an order for Saudis, Bahraini and Emirati citizens to leave Qatar in fourteen days, and for Qatari citizens to go back to their own country over the same time period. Air, sea and land routes into the Qatari peninsula are blocked, which means that the food imports that Doha relies on to feed its population will need to rely on other seaports to unload their product. Qatar Airways, one of the region's major carriers, is banned from using Gulf Arab airspace, causing multiple delays and forcing the airline to fly more circuitous paths.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. It's tough to act as a mediating party between two sides when the mediator is seen as taking sides. With a single tweet, Trump managed to yet again undercut his own Secretary of State.

We could do the easy thing and bash Trump incessantly over yet one more unwise Twitter outburst. And it would be justified: Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. It would also reassure European governments that have been skittish over the last four months.

[Jun 09, 2017] Saudi Arabias Coalition Could Accidentally Unleash Iran

Diplomatically the support of KAS was alrea albatros around the Us neck. It poratiens the USA as hyprocritical and brutal opportunist, devoid of any pronciple other then desire to establish and preseve the world hegemony.
Jun 09, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
The Iran-Syria alliance has endured the test of war and time. In the early 1980s, Iraq and Iran were engrossed in a brutal conflict that Baghdad portrayed as a war against Iranian expansionism. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the United States formed a coalition to isolate Tehran from the Hafez al-Assad regime and invite a swift victory for Baghdad. The Syria-Iran alliance never broke, even as Syria became entrenched in its own conflict in Lebanon. In his book chronicling the alliance , Jubin Goodarzi even asserted that Hafez al-Assad turned down $2 billion offered to him by the Saudis if he reopened the trans-Syrian pipeline to Iraq. Despite intense economic and military pressure, this strategy only solidified the nascent alliance between Tehran and Damascus. This alliance has remained durable and transcended significant strategic disagreements between the two countries over the last three decades.

Iran chooses its alliances and conflicts pragmatically, rather than ideologically. For example, the Islamic Republic historically ignored the plights of Shia minorities in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in favor of maintaining semi-cordial relations with Riyadh and Islamabad. Western analysts often portray Iran's most important alliance with Syria as that of a client and patron state. In reality, it is much closer to a genuine partnership rooted in common strategic goals, despite widely diverging ideologies. Both countries see themselves as unique partners in the "resistance" against Israel. Both also portray themselves as tolerant of religious minorities and sects in a region enveloped by Salafi extremism. Most importantly, Damascus and Tehran have always viewed a strong Arab bloc and Arab detente with Israel as an existential threat. This was true when Egypt and Syria cut diplomatic relations after the Camp David Accord, and when Arab states formed an alliance against the new Islamic Republic in Iran. Thus Tehran and Damascus see themselves as partners in a fight against an Arab bloc that is increasingly dictated by a U.S.-Saudi alliance. No amount of pressure on Iran will make the cost of Tehran's intervention in Syria too high to bear.

Iran's experience of relative isolation during the war imposed on it by Saddam Hussein's Iraq inspired a frenzied race to develop domestic defensive and ballistic-missile capabilities. In a 2016 interview , Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif asked, "What do you expect, Iran to lie dead? You've covered the Iran–Iraq war, you remember missiles pouring on Iranian cities with chemical weapons. You remember that we didn't have any to defend ourselves." The harsh realities of the Iran-Iraq War quelled revolutionary Iran's ambitions to export its revolution and ideology. Ever since the end of the war, Tehran has instead placed an emphasis on developing strategic alliances outside of the Middle East and developing a domestic military-industrial complex. President Trump's calls to isolate Iran during his recent speech in Riyadh will only provoke a surge in Iranian military development.

Three contemporary developments also demonstrate why an "Arab NATO" will fail at its mission: Arab Shia communities view Saudi and Wahhabi hegemony as an existential threat, the Saudi-coalition is already fractured, and China and Russia have every reason to tilt towards Tehran.

The main threat that the Saudi-led coalition seeks to combat is the rise of Arab Shia movements and militias that it believes are loyal to Iran, especially in Iraq and Syria. As I have written before , Shia movements are not nearly as loyal to Iranian interests as often believed, but the existence of an "Arab NATO" will likely result in driving vulnerable Shia communities closer to Tehran. Powerful cleric and warlord Muqtada al-Sadr has called on Assad to resign as president, and expelled fighters found to have fought in Syria in direct opposition to Iranian policy. Several high-ranking Shia clerics in Iraq have issued fatwas forbidding their followers to participate in Syrian operations. The most senior of these clerics, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who himself is of Iranian extraction, has long been the darling of Western analysts due to his rejection of theocracy. In 2005, Thomas Friedman called for Sistani to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his quietist inclinations and role in legitimizing the new Iraqi government in the eyes of Shia. However, the rise of U.S.-backed Sunni coalitions will likely push Iraqi Shia toward institutionalized militancy if they feel their communities are under attack by Saudi-funded Sunni extremists.

Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani allegedly stated that "there is no wisdom in harboring hostility toward Iran," but Qatar quickly claimed unconvincingly that the story was fabricated. This led Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen's Western-backed government and Libya to cut off relations with Qatar and put in place an aggressive blockade on its population. Doha's open support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Riyadh's allegation that Qatar provides support for ISIS-and, more importantly, Shia protesters in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province-were used as the official excuse for severing ties. But this is clearly intended by Saudi Arabia to escalate tensions with Iran and send the message that lukewarm partners in the proxy war will not be accepted.

... ... ...

An "Arab NATO" will provide little deterrence, and instead result in an arms race and a deepening of sectarian conflict in the region. It also risks dragging U.S. forces into a sectarian conflict. As former secretary of defense Robert Gates pointed out, the Saudis always want to "fight the Iranians to the last American."

Adam Weinstein is a policy associate at the National Iranian American Council. He is a veteran of the Marine Corps where he served in Afghanistan. He has contributed to Foreign Policy, The Diplomat, CNN, and other outlets .

John Doe • 10 hours ago

SA is trying tp preserve waning hegemony by picking fights with anyone in sight but failing to defeat Yemen , now it's Qatar's turn with the hopes of it developing into an Iran - USA war.It won't help. The Saudis are TERRIFIED of a diplomatic rapprochement between Washington & Tehran and would start any war to prevent it.

SweatnSteel • 4 hours ago

As if this whole kerfuffle was strictly Riyadh's idea... Hmm.. Who else has been screaming "Iran, Iran, Iran"??

Who else is mortified by the expansion and reinforcement of the Shia crescent now stretching from Pakistan to the Mediterranean?

Who else indeed.. Riiiiight...


youyeg • 39 minutes ago

I think the best solution for Arab state is to provide more cooperation and not relying on the US and money. Nothing could come out of tension, but rise of opportunists who seek profit out of chaos.

[Jun 09, 2017] GOP senator threatens to subpoena firm tied to Trump dossier

Notable quotes:
"... Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is threatening to subpoena a firm tied to the controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump. ..."
"... Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who now heads Fusion GPS, warning that that if he refused to "comply voluntarily" with the committee's request senators "will begin consideration of compulsory process under its rules." ..."
"... The New York Times reported earlier this year that Fusion GPS was hired to conduct opposition research in September 2015 by a GOP donor opposed to Trump. In June 2016, the firm hired Steele to investigate any ties between Trump and Russia and, according to the Times, then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton 's campaign paid the firm for the research after it became clear that Trump would be his party's nominee. ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | thehill.com
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is threatening to subpoena a firm tied to the controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump.

Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who now heads Fusion GPS, warning that that if he refused to "comply voluntarily" with the committee's request senators "will begin consideration of compulsory process under its rules."

"Your attorney has failed to sufficiently explain your claims that responding to the Committee's requests would infringe upon or violate your and/or Fusion's First Amendment rights, attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and confidentiality agreements," Grassley wrote in a letter released on Friday.

Grassley is giving Simpson until Wednesday to respond to his letter and hand over "responsive documents."

The back-and-forth comes as Grassley is digging deeper into former British spy Christopher Steele's controversial dossier, which alleges that the Russians had compromising information on the president. Grassley sent a letter to Fusion GPS in March requesting information on the dossier, as well as details on Steele's hiring, and asked if it had shared information with the FBI.

But lawyers for the firm said on April 9 that the letter "calls for information and documents protected by the First Amendment rights, attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and contractual rights (e.g., confidentiality agreements) of Fusion GPS and/or its clients."

Grassley argued that the firm hasn't been able to give a "clear explanation of the basis for the claimed privileges and rights." "Based on the minimal and vague explanations your attorney has provided, the Committee cannot adequately assess your claims. Thus, we must presume that they are unfounded," Grassley wrote.

The New York Times reported earlier this year that Fusion GPS was hired to conduct opposition research in September 2015 by a GOP donor opposed to Trump. In June 2016, the firm hired Steele to investigate any ties between Trump and Russia and, according to the Times, then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton 's campaign paid the firm for the research after it became clear that Trump would be his party's nominee.

[Jun 09, 2017] Comey rips media for dead wrong Russia stories

Notable quotes:
"... "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was. ..."
"... The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... "In the main it was not true," Comey said. ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | thehill.com
Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have often received bad information.

"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

Sen. Tom Cotton Tom Cotton Trump's 'infrastructure week' goes off the rails New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.

The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin," the Times wrote.

"In the main it was not true," Comey said.

But in an analysis of Comey's comments on Thursday evening, the Times argued that sources cited in the Feb. 14 article have vouched for the account put forth, though the newspaper's reporters were not able to contact them immediately after Comey's testimony.

The analysis raises the possibility that Comey could have been disputing the article's characterization of Russian intelligence officials.

Another possibility, according to the Times, is that Comey may have disputed with the newspaper's description of the evidence as "phone records and intercepted calls."

Comey said incorrect reports are frustrating because the FBI's policy is not to comment on the media's coverage of its investigations.

"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong.' "

Trump has repeatedly railed against "fake news" and the media's reliance on unnamed sources.

CNN this week had to issue a correction after it reported that Comey would testify that he never told Trump that he wasn't the target of an investigation.

[Jun 08, 2017] Comey opted for revenge

Jun 08, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
"In that testimony he had already disclosed that Trump demanded his "loyalty" and directly pushed him to "lift the cloud" of investigation by declaring publicly the president was not the target of the FBI probe into his campaign's Russia ties."

Oh OK so Trump MADE the little bitch state that he (Trump) was not the target .Really!!

"Former FBI Director James Comey says if FBI agents knew the president had asked him to drop an investigation into the former national security adviser, it would have a "real chilling effect" on their work.

Comey says he decided not to tell agents working on the Russia investigation about what he perceived to be a request from the president to drop the probe into Michael Flynn.

Comey says even as good as the agents are, hearing that the president asked for this could be detrimental. He says, "that's why we kept it so tight."

Comey testiphony: speculative .conclusory ..ad hominem vague petitio principii ..et cetera..
http://www.wben.com/articles/comey-testimony-video-clips-minute-minute-summaries

[Jun 08, 2017] Comey apparently admit leaking stuff to New York Times

Notable quotes:
"... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
"... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.

Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump.

Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today.

UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

This line of questioning from @SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked

- Matt House (@mattwhouse) June 8, 2017

Here's video of her comparing Trump to an armed robber though, so take whatever she says with a grain of salt:

Sen. Kamala Harris seems to compare Trump to an armed robber saying "I hope you will give me your wallet" #ComeyTestimony pic.twitter.com/2yjfV3UyIM

- Mike Ciandella ن (@MikeCiandella) June 8, 2017

Meanwhile, anti-Trump Never Trumper Max Boot is in an alternate reality, saying Comey was fantastic as a witness.

Bottom line for #ComeyDay : Comey a highly credible witness. Trump isn't. Comey makes damning accusations. Trump denials unconvincing.

- Max Boot (@MaxBoot) June 8, 2017

Flashback, though, to when Comey was fired and Boot with some bold predictions back on May 9:

Congress needs to ask Comey to testify & he needs to tell all he knows about Kremlingate. If he does Trump may regret firing him.

- Max Boot (@MaxBoot) May 10, 2017

Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper from when Comey was fired in May:

Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment.

- Max Boot (@MaxBoot)

Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.

- Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:21 P.M. Loretta Lynch is in serious trouble right now. Looks like the Democrats' efforts may have backfired.

Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony

- Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) June 8, 2017

If it wasn't for Trump becoming president, the corruption with Obama's Department of Justice would be a major story.

- Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) June 8, 2017

Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.

UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at least part of it has:

Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r

- Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) June 8, 2017

So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president #ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9

- Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

And now Comey's anti-Trump leak network is confirming to the media that Comey is a leaker:

Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters.

- Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing where Comey has implicated her.

Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?

- Mike Shields (@mshields007) June 8, 2017

Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:

Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions

- Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

Comey is doing well but leaking info runs against Comey's image, particularly in light of the leak controversy hoiunding the Administration

- Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

The memos could be viewed as gov't material and potential evidence . Leaking to a friend for disclosure can raise serious questions.

- Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:02 P.M. Donald Trump, Jr., highlights an excellent question from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to Comey. Comey did not have a great answer.

Sen Blunt: If you told Sessions you didn't want to be alone with Trump again, why did you continue to take his calls?

- Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media narrative during his questioning of Comey.

Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger. Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.

UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:

Because if it was leaked that @realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative. pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M

- Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) June 8, 2017

President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.

UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats AND now the fake news media.

Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about Russia that are just "dead wrong"

- Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) June 8, 2017

I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.

UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.

Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
"I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."

- Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 8, 2017

That's not the only drama-filled Comey testimony:

COMEY JUST QUOTES HENRY 11 on what he thought Trump meant: 'Will no one rid me of this toublesome priest"

- Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) June 8, 2017

Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.

Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.

- Jim Acosta (@Acosta) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.

Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators - and they will demand some kind of repayment

- Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) June 8, 2017

The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.

UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.

Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without any senator having even asked.

- Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.

Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of James Comey's Senate testimony

- Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama, and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is in full swing:

Spotted at Duffy's Irish Pub in North DC:
"Comey is my homey." pic.twitter.com/kvGuaqEqsd

- Sharon Nunn (@sharonmnunn) June 8, 2017

Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.

Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully prompt the appointment of a special counsel. pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te

- Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017

Comey admits to @SenatorCollins that he asked a friend to leak the contents of his memo to NYT to prompt the appointment of Special Counsel.

- Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

Here's video of Comey admitting he has been leaking information to the media:

Here's how I leaked my Trump memo after Trump's "tapes" tweet

by: James Comey pic.twitter.com/9Z1QPPdcKD

- Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.

Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction

- John Hayward (@Doc_0) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction of justice."

"Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair," Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

Read his whole story here .

[Jun 08, 2017] Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation

Comey deflated under Loretta Lynch pressure and wrapped the investigation of favorable to Hillary terms. He assigned close to Hillary Person to lead the investigation, which suggest cover up from the very beginning of the investigation. Then he has the second thought and issued his famous statement, in which he usurped the role of justice Department official.
marknesop.wordpress.com

Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described.

"At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.

Comey added that Lynch's infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.

[Jun 08, 2017] Hey Intercept, Something Is Very Wrong With Reality Winner and the NSA Leak

Is not this CIA or Mossad trying to implicate Russians? why nobody asks relevant questions? Russia is way too convenient bogeyman to exclude such a possibility. Russians were under the gun already in 2016. In such circumstances they would prefer to lie low, not to do such stupid things.
Jun 07, 2017 | www.antiwar.com
June 7, 2017 An NSA document purporting to show Russian military hacker attempts to access a Florida company which makes voter registration software is sent anonymously to The Intercept . A low-level NSA contractor, Reality Winner, above, is arrested almost immediately. What's wrong with this picture? A lot.

Who Benefits?

Start with the question of who benefits – cui bono – same as detectives do when assessing a crime.

Trump looks bad as another trickle of information comes out connecting something Russian to something 2016 election. Intelligence community (IC) looks like they are onto something, a day or so before ousted FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress on related matters. The Intercept looks like it contributed to burning a source. Which potential leaker is going to them in the future? If potential leakers are made to think twice, another win for the IC. The FBI made an arrest right away, nearly simultaneous to the publication, with the formal charges coming barely an hour after The Intercept published. The bust is sure thing according to the very publicly released information. No Ed Snowden hiding out in Russia this time. IC looks good here. More evidence is now in the public domain that the Russians are after our election process. Seems as if the IC has been right all along.

What Happened is Curious and Curiouser

Now let's look at what we know so far about how this happened.

A 25-year-old improbably-named Reality Winner leaves behind a trail long and wide on social media of anti-Trump stuff, including proclaiming herself a member of The Resistance. Never mind, she takes her Top Secret clearance with her out of the Air Force (she had been stationed with the military's 94th Intelligence Squadron out of Fort Meade, Maryland, co-located with the NSA's headquarters) and scores a job with an NSA contractor. Despite the lessons of too-much-access the Snowden episode should have taught the NSA, Winner apparently enjoys all sorts of classified documents – her Air Force expertise was in Afghan matters, so it is unclear why she would have access to info on Russia hacking of U.S. domestic companies.

Within only about 90 days of starting her new job, she prints out the one (and only one apparently, why not more?) document in question and mails it to The Intercept. She also uses her work computer inside an NSA facility to write to the Intercept twice about this same time.

Winner has a clearance. She was trained as a Dari, Pashto, and Farsi linguist by the Air Force. She knows how classified stuff works. She has been told repeatedly, as all persons with a clearance are, that her computer, email, printing, and phone are monitored. She mailed the document from Augusta, Georgia, the city where she lives and where the NSA facility is located. She practiced no tradecraft, did nothing to hide her actions and many things to call attention to them. It is very, very unclear why she took the actions she did under those circumstances.

The Document

The Intercept meanwhile drops by their friendly neighborhood NSA contact and shows them the document. NSA very publicly confirms the veracity of the document (unusual in itself, officially the Snowden and Manning documents remain unconfirmed) and then makes sure the open-court document filed is not sealed and includes the information on how the spooks know the leaked doc was printed inside the NSA facility. Winner went on to make a full confession to the FBI. The upshot? This document is not a plant. The NSA wants you to very much know it is real. The Russians certainly are messing with our election.

But funny thing. While the leaked NSA document seems to be a big deal, at least to the general public, it sort of isn't. It shows one piece of analysis suggesting but not confirming the GRU, Russian military intelligence, tried to steal some credentials and gain access to a private company . No US sources and methods, or raw technical intel, are revealed, the crown jewel stuff. There is no evidence the hack accomplished anything at all, never mind anything nefarious. The hack took place months ago and ran its course, meaning the Russian operation was already dead. The Russians were running a run-of-the-mill spearfishing attack, potentially effective, but nothing especially sophisticated. You get similar stuff all the time trying to harvest your credit card information. The leaked document looks like a big deal but isn't.

Another issue. The Intercept has a lot of very smart people working for it, people with real-world intelligence and tradecraft experience. People who know about microdot encoding on printed documents, one of the tells here, and people who know they don't show their whole hand when asking the NSA for a comment. The Intercept journalist volunteered to an NSA contracting company that the envelope received was postmarked to Augusta, where Winner lived and worked. Like Reality Winner and her own security training, it is very, very unclear why the Intercept took the actions it did under those circumstances.

So For Now

So, look, what we know about this story may represent .01% of the whole picture, and that tiny sliver of visible information is only what the government has chosen to reveal. And sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. Sometimes smart people make dumb mistakes.

But that's not the way you place your bets, especially when dealing with the IC who are good at these kinds of games. At this very early stage I'm going to say there are too many coincidences and too many mistakes to simple shrug it all off. Too many of the benefits in this have accrued on the side of the IC than is typical when a real whistleblower shares classified documents with a journalist.

If it frightens you that I invoke the question of the Deep State using journalists to smear the President, just forget I said anything. But if we're willing to believe the Russians somehow successfully manipulated our entire society to elect their favored candidate, then we can at least ask a few questions.

Otherwise, if anyone hears Winner's lawyer use the word "patsy," let me know, OK?

BONUS: Matt Cole, one of The Intercept journalists credited to this story, was also involved in the outing of source CIA officer John Kiriakou in connection with CIA torture claims. Small world!

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

[Jun 06, 2017] Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source

Looks more and more like psyop operation -- a part of a Neo-McCarthyism propaganda campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press in the first place? Who benefits? ..."
"... Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and media wants. Sigh. ..."
"... P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo, who is unfortunately dead, states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what to write and how to write it. ..."
"... If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot. ..."
"... That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell. ..."
"... Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder of eBay. ..."
"... CIA Agents Caught Red Handed Trolling Alternative Media Sites http://humansarefree.com/2017/06/cia-agents-caught-red-handed-trolling.html I think we talked about this years ago, in regards to Israeli paid trolls, but we've gone so far into the Panopticon control grid, what difference does it make. ..."
"... I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just that. ..."
"... ...which of course how psyops works. Because this leak will fuel more of the Trump/Russian conspiracies and hatred in the MSM. ..."
"... Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered up. ..."
"... This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves. ..."
"... Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater? ..."
"... Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info, as we have seen so many times now past months. She nor we as readers have any idea if there is any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups in our society benefit from this greatly. ..."
"... I haven't trusted The Intercept since they ran their hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it. The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money. ..."
"... She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she leak deep state material to smear her "enemies". ..."
"... Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups? ..."
"... Omidyar being behind the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement. ..."
"... And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill. Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept? ..."
"... Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow! to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive". They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers behind it, or truly rock the boat. ..."
"... There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual interference with voting system beyond data gathering. ..."
"... Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That can improve the discipline in the shop. ..."
"... This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs (the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically, they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world. For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate of the losers. They are all the same. ..."
"... Sounds like a con job from start to finish. Along the lines of bellingcat, SOHR ect. Just another method of disseminating propaganda. ..."
"... this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to Russian data. ..."
"... I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final coin-toss. ..."
"... really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing? ..."
"... Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there). ..."
"... If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of the day. ..."
"... Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. ..."
"... All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT. ..."
"... Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way. ..."
"... I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp. Her employer probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end. ..."
"... The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy job checking up on their source. ..."
"... thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what an effective and professional attack would actually look like). ..."
"... as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's. ..."
"... i've been reading douglas valentine's book on the phoenix program and other CIA criminality https://www.amazon.com/CIA-Organized-Crime-Illegal-Operations/dp/0997287012 ..."
"... It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept? Why not the NYtimes or wapo? ..."
"... It's becoming more difficult daily to find something that doesn't stink. I see it as an attempt to further bury the censored NBC interview with Putin where he explained several hard truths, one of which I alluded to yesterday. Compare vid here, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/nbc-edited-out-putins-hard-truths-heres.html with uncensored one here, which includes transcript, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54688 ..."
Jun 06, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yesterday The Intercept published a leaked five page NSA analysis about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Its reporting outed the leaker of the NSA documents. That person, R.L. Winner, has now been arrested and is likely to be jailed for years if not for the rest of her life.

FBI search (pdf) and arrest warrant (pdf) applications unveil irresponsible behavior by the Intercept 's reporters and editors which neglected all operational security trade-craft that might have prevented the revealing of the source. It leaves one scratching the head if this was intentional or just sheer incompetence. Either way - the incident confirms what skeptics had long determined : The Intercept is not a trustworthy outlet for leaking state secrets of public interests.

The Intercept was created to privatize the National Security Agency documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents proved that the NSA is hacking and copying nearly all electronic communication on this planet, that it was breaking laws that prohibited spying on U.S. citizen and that it sabotages on a large scale various kinds of commercial electronic equipment. Snowden gave copies of the NSA documents to a small number of journalists. One of them was Glenn Greenwald who now works at The Intercept . Only some 5% of the pages Snowden allegedly acquired and gave to reporters have been published. We have no idea what the unpublished pages would provide.

The Intercept , a subdivision of First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a major owner of the auctioning site eBay and its PayPal banking division. Omidyar is a billionaire and "philanthropist" who's (tax avoiding) Omidyar Network foundation is "investing" for "returns". Its microcredit project for farmers in India, in cooperation with people from the fascists RSS party, ended in an epidemic of suicides when the farmers were unable to pay back. The Omidyar Network also funded (fascist) regime change groups in Ukraine in cooperation with USAID. Omidyar had cozy relations with the Obama White House. Some of the held back NSA documents likely implicate Omidyar's PayPal.

The Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. It first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras - all involved in publishing the Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked the NSA stack. It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way. The Intercept pieces are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream "liberal" to libertarian slant. Some were highly partisan anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda . The website seems to have no regular publishing schedule at all. Between one and five piece per day get pushed out, only few of them make public waves. Some of its later prominent hires (Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi) soon left and alleged that the place was run in a chaotic atmosphere and with improper and highly politicized editing. Despite its rich backing and allegedly high pay for its main journalists (Greenwald is said to receive between 250k and 1 million per year) the Intercept is begging for reader donations .

Yesterday's published story (with bylines of four(!) reporters) begins :

Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November's presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

The NSA "intelligence report" the Intercept publishes along the piece does NOT show that "Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack ". The document speaks of "cyber espionage operations " - i.e someone looked and maybe copied data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information. It is different from a "cyberattack" like Stuxnet which was intended to create large damage,

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 6:32:53 AM | 1

First Deep State Arrest? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/first-deep-state-arrest-government-contractor-busted-leaking-nsa-docs-to-the-intercept/

That girl's social media accounts is filled with neocon propaganda and anti-Trump posts. Intercept is really really stupid for spreading this deepstate pro-war desinformation.

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 6:40:53 AM | 2
Wikileaks twitter account has good comment on it. It is clear that The Intercept is a way to coopt hackers and leakers. She possibly would not have been arrested with Democrats in power. The New York Times and the Intercept have a campaign to leak to US sources so that whistleblowing is not treason.
never mind | Jun 6, 2017 6:53:25 AM | 3
I take it that there's not even the slightest or far reaching bit of evidence at all in the leaked documents that implicates Russia (or the US government) of any mischief.

So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press in the first place? Who benefits?

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:01:37 AM | 4
never mind

Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and media wants. Sigh.

nobody | Jun 6, 2017 7:04:47 AM | 5
She looks like a dual citizen of the Rothschild colony in Palestine.
Mister Roboto | Jun 6, 2017 7:07:17 AM | 6
Thanks for this. Even before reading this account, I was inclined to think "fake news" because the Deep State is such a prolific and relentless generator of propaganda. And also, I think we're pretty much screwed regardless of who is in power. My only hope is that it all doesn't end up in mushroom-clouds.
Miller | Jun 6, 2017 7:10:45 AM | 7
This sort of activity wouldn't have helped Russian intelligence, but it might have been useful to US intelligence. DHS already got caught red handed.
opereta | Jun 6, 2017 7:16:59 AM | 8
It was obvious that The Intercept became a US Inteligence Industry pawn the minute it started to denounce Al Assad on 2016. It was too good to be true from the beginning. Snowden should say something about "his friends" Greenwald and Poitras !! As far as it is descrived in the above article, the R J Winner affaire could be just another Psy Op by the Langley People
Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9
Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?
somebody | Jun 6, 2017 7:40:07 AM | 10
Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9

Because one person's freedom is everybody's freedom or in a quotation "Freedom is always the freedom of the person that thinks differently from you".

Lea | Jun 6, 2017 7:49:35 AM | 13
Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 7:20:36 AM | 9
Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?

Assange supports all leakers, regardless of what they leak or to whom. Any other stance would amount to shooting himself in the foot.

On another note, what is extraordinary is to see a Deep State leaker busted by the Deep State. How batty is that? I mean, she was only trying to help them against "big bad Russia", wasn't she? So?

falcemartello | Jun 6, 2017 7:51:05 AM | 14
Yes the intercept gave them self away when Greenwald wrote a piece denouncing the Syrian government and the SAA back in 2015. He occasionally has sane and progressive expressions like when he speaks against the fascist state of Israel. He gave himself away again on the propaganda outlet Democracy now. He was eluding to the fact of Russian collusion with the recent POTUS elections and the Flyn fiasco. Here again he gave himself away. He is bought and paid for by the elite like most journo's in our deluded western countries.

P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo, who is unfortunately dead, states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what to write and how to write it.

although a fan of the intercept at first, i soured when they announced they were spying on their readership. never trust a billionaire. betrayal is the only route to billionaire status.

greenwald and poitras at the oscars turned my stomach. not a word about chelsea manning or any of the others ... greenwald and poitras were the 'stars'.

now, no matter this winner is a loser or no, they've betrayed another one of the people who've put them where they are. they're cannibals.

since i stopped reading the intercept i was unaware of their support for al-cia-duh and the jihadists in syria. that just stinks.

snowden cast his pearls before swine.

Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16
Maybe someone at The Intercept thought this was an attempt by the NSA (not the "deep state, there isn't one") to burn them, so they toss the document back at the NSA to see what happens.

Why The Intercept? If you read most Clintonist blogs, you'll quickly realise that Greenwald is up there with Assange and Putin as satanic (Trumpist) agents, so an Internet-aware Clintonist sending documents to The Intercept or Wikileaks suggests some other purpose than simply leaking information adverse to Trump.

Most Clintonists have jumped on this NSA "document" as further solid proof of Putin's culpability which just happened to be "leaked" at about the same time a favourable interview with Putin was being broadcast on the MSM.

If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot.

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:00:37 AM | 17
somebody / Lea

Actually Wikileaks/Assange have no idea if this info is even true. Who leaks this? Well obviously the same propagandists we heard past 6 months that want the world to think Russia and Trump won the election/the pathetic accusation that Russia somehow ruled the election to Trump. As far as we know the leaks could not only lack evidence but it could also be pure fake. So no, I dont see why Wikileaks and Assange would support this. But thats me.

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:05:00 AM | 18
Posted by: falcemartello | Jun 6, 2017 7:51:05 AM | 14

That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell.

Of course everybody the US, Russia, Qatar, companies have a PR greyzone trying to influence public opinion.

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:08:44 AM | 19
Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16

Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff. The solution is obvious but I don't hear anybody calling for it: Paper ballots. It is simple, works and is fast if you have a good counting system in place. Lots of countries still use it.

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:11:10 AM | 20
Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:00:37 AM | 17

Accepting that leakers could be fake would destroy the business model. But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.

jfl | Jun 6, 2017 8:13:28 AM | 21
Reality Winner charged leaking classified material

rod rosenstein ... Rosenstein and Mueller: the Regime Change Tag-Team , mike whitney has this guy's number, if you ask me.

Who "owns" the NSA secrets leaked by Edward Snowden to reporters Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras?

Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder of eBay.

Whistleblowing has traditionally served the public interest. In this case, it is about to serve the interests of a billionaire starting a for-profit media business venture. This is truly unprecedented. Never before has such a vast trove of public secrets been sold wholesale to a single billionaire as the foundation of a for-profit company.

and who sold them? not edward snowden ... he gave them away ... to the two 'operators' who sold them to omidyar.

after death, devastation, and destruction outright ... deceit it the usofa's main growth industry. and hey, 'progressives' can do it too! and still huff and puff themselves up - among their temporary, transactional 'friends' anyway - with righteousness indignation.

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22
somebody

Thats whats called desinformation or psyops., you already for example seems claim that this is true facts that have been leaked, but we dont know that. Or do you actually believe the whole Russia-Trump-hacking-claims we heard past months?

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:41:09 AM | 23
Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22

It is a document about what someone in the NSA believes , it is completely meaningless. Greenwald and Scahill are kind of distancing themselves from the article. The document is just enough to cause headlines that convince trusting people that Russia hacked the election. Arresting the leaker makes sure everybody heard about it. Who wrote it by the way

Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim

They need 4 people to publish a document and burn a source?

Uncle $cam | Jun 6, 2017 8:49:05 AM | 24
CIA Agents Caught Red Handed Trolling Alternative Media Sites http://humansarefree.com/2017/06/cia-agents-caught-red-handed-trolling.html I think we talked about this years ago, in regards to Israeli paid trolls, but we've gone so far into the Panopticon control grid, what difference does it make.

Carry on...

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:52:33 AM | 25
Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:19:24 AM | 22

I assume Russia has a cyber capacity in its defense portfolio, like everybody else.

The most likely scenario is Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange having a very personal private war after the state department leaks. I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just that.

What do politicians in the US think - that they can attack without anybody trying to hit back?

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 8:55:33 AM | 27
somebody

"... document about what someone in the NSA believes,..."

...which of course how psyops works. Because this leak will fuel more of the Trump/Russian conspiracies and hatred in the MSM.

Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 9:11:24 AM | 29

>>>>> Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:08:44 AM | 19
Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16

Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff.

Well that's a big fat F in Black Ops 101 for you.

The Intercept just returns the document to the NSA - end of.

The Intercept asks the NSA to review and redact the document - it keeps going. Returning the received document rather than a re-typed one might raise questions within the NSA but could be put down to operator error at The Intercept but re-typed documents would get The Intercept no further in working out what's actually happening.

I'm not sure if this is what is happening but the whole thing is weird.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:11:10 AM | 20

But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.

Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered up.

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 9:15:07 AM | 30
27) if so, there are unintended consequences

From the memory whole - wired

But that's not what's really important here. WikiLeaks and Assange say they have no responsibility for the content they leak, and that no one has evidence that the sources of the DNC leak are Russian. But these leaks and tweets damage WikiLeaks' credibility. If they're not scrutinizing their own leaks on the base level of their content, it's not hard to imagine that WikiLeaks could unwittingly become part of someone else's agenda (like, say, a Russian one). "If you are a legitimate leaker, why go with WikiLeaks? You go with The Intercept or the New York Times, like they did with the Panama Papers" says Nicholas Weaver, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley who studies the organization. "Wikileaks is a pastebin for spooks, and they're happy to be used that way."

All this effort to discredit Wikileaks - poof.

Kronos | Jun 6, 2017 9:22:06 AM | 32
One would think that all parties would be interested in this news. The Dems, of course, want to make Russian links. But doesn't Trump want to use this to prove his theory that the popular vote was wrong? Let's not turn this into a game where everyone interprets things based on ideology. The whole dang point is that someone was trying to infiltrate our voting system. Maybe they failed, maybe it was just a reconnaissance mission, but it happened. That is news.

Moon is obviously showing extreme bias. Instead of trying to figure out and analyze the implications he uses this as a way to score points. Points against the Intercept. Points against the Dems, and so on. How tiring.

SlapHappy | Jun 6, 2017 9:54:22 AM | 35
This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves.

Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater?

ben | Jun 6, 2017 10:15:11 AM | 38
More diversion folks. The real elephant in the room is the U$A electoral system. It's rotten to it's core. Regardless of ANY information coming from ANY source, the corporate overlords OWN the voting systems at the national level here in the U$A. SO, we here in the U$A, can believe whoever we want to, but, our votes, at least at national level, are meaningless.

P.S- Read around folks, but, watch what people do, not what the say.

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 10:34:10 AM | 40
jawbone

Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info, as we have seen so many times now past months. She nor we as readers have any idea if there is any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups in our society benefit from this greatly.

Bob Bows | Jun 6, 2017 10:46:15 AM | 41
The article even says that NO EVIDENCE has been presented: "While the document provides rare window into the NSA's understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying "raw" intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the documentbecause a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."

The information is a lie, just like the original report from the Director of National Intelligence, as I detail here: http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2017/01/us-intelligence-reports-fail.html

From The Hague | Jun 6, 2017 10:49:08 AM | 42
peter #39 that Trump has been utterly silent about Russia or Putin. Not one negative word.

Everybody not complying with "Russia/Putin is bad" must be paid or blackmailed. Silly.

Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 11:24:33 AM | 44
Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2017 10:34:10 AM | 40
she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state

Three points:

1. She is not a neo-con, she's a neo-lib/liberal interventionist/R2P liberal/Clintonist. There is a big difference between neo-cons and neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists. The neo-cons do it because they can, the latter, who are far more dangerous, do it "for the greater good" although they rarely ask the people who it's being done for what they think and they have a far greater degree of "religious"certainty about what they're doing.
To paraphrase Putin in his recent interview, "why would he interfere in American elections as he gets the same foreign policy crap regardless of which side wins?"

2. The neo-cons lost big time in Iraq and as a result have little real power in Washington beyond being disruptive.

3. There is no deep state in the United States now because it's totally visible, and since both the neo-cons and the neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists have the same objective there is no need for secrecy or conspiracies. If anyone needs to revive the "deep state" it's the Trumpists.

All these conspiracy theories are a waste of time and energy because there is so much real dangerous crap going on that needs to be attended to first.

William Rood | Jun 6, 2017 11:31:31 AM | 45
I haven't trusted The Intercept since they ran their hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard.
financial matters | Jun 6, 2017 11:37:29 AM | 46
Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it. The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money.
From The Hague | Jun 6, 2017 11:43:20 AM | 47
#46
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html
SlapHappy | Jun 6, 2017 11:46:22 AM | 48
Assuming the neocons and neolibs represent different interests is the same as assuming the democrats and republicans represent different masters. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and until we can come together and agree on who the real enemy is, they'll continue eating our lunch with impunity.
Pnyx | Jun 6, 2017 11:57:04 AM | 49
Thanks for the very valuable information. I wonder what Snowdon is thinking and maybe doing about The Intercept. Being him I would be fourious.
Anon | Jun 6, 2017 11:57:32 AM | 50
ghostship

She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she leak deep state material to smear her "enemies".

Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups?

NemesisCalling | Jun 6, 2017 12:38:46 PM | 52
@24 uncle $cam

This is easy to tell but difficult to snuff out in the end. Once Hillary and co. started railing against paid Kremlin-trolls on alt-right and various forum sites, you knew that it was something that they had been doing for quite sometime and, indeed, had been losing the battle. At that point, it was best to throw up their hands and concoct the victim-story, even though we TPTB probably pioneered the tactics (color revolutions, ngos, etc.).

Perhaps there were Kremlin agents on our boards. Perhaps there are some here. But truth, or a slightly biased truth, still stands in their corner, so I refuse to complain about Russia agents. The CIA OTOH. They can GTFO.

james | Jun 6, 2017 12:39:01 PM | 53
thanks b..

i used to like greenwald long before his time at the intercept... the intercept smelt funny right from the beginning.. i haven't followed it, in spite of having enjoyed reading greenwald when he was more independent..

this whole story stinks to high heaven.. something is weird about the whole thing.. can't put my finger on it.. seems like more bs basically.. the usa is bonkers at this point..

@8 opereta... i see it similar to you..

@43 uncle scam... some of those folks are still around, but more of them are not..

hopehely | Jun 6, 2017 12:48:49 PM | 54
How on Earth do these kids (Snowden, Winner, etc) manage to get that kind of jobs?
crone | Jun 6, 2017 12:52:30 PM | 55
@54 2 yrs of college, a couple of years in 'the field' (Air Force in this case)

Pointman | Jun 6, 2017 1:13:54 PM | 57
As you say, appalling tradecraft by both the leaker and the recipient. I would have thought even a cursory security check before giving her any security clearance would have unearthed her extreme views on social media.

Some general thoughts on the subject of leaks from the Trump administration -

https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/leaks/

Pointman

Brooklin Bridge | Jun 6, 2017 1:17:51 PM | 58
Excellent article. A warning to heed and I hope it gets out far and wide. Omidyar being behind the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement.
Copeland | Jun 6, 2017 1:20:02 PM | 59
What a circus of distraction that grabs for public attention; its chief element is distraction,-- and its goal is distraction. In the end, Trump will probably go farther to accommodate the deep state, since what it aims to destroy is any chance for improvement of relations with Russia. This a PSYOPS extravaganza. The moronic level of political debate is not going to improve with the introduction of Reality Winner ( whose name sounds a bit silly, in this context).

The confirmed partisans will wolf down such farce without even tasting it. These absurd pratfalls will stop abruptly when the risk to our survival becomes obvious; but something on the order of a miracle would need to happen soon, to avert disaster. Trump's base will loudly congratulate him, whatever concessions he makes to survive politically; and the rationally unmoored Dems will sign on to any confidence game if it gets the results they are after.

Certainly, a closer observation of the details can help. Thanks to the author of this article, our host, and those who have commented. The alternative is for life to become a work of fiction.

WGary | Jun 6, 2017 1:44:48 PM | 60
My guess is "Reality Winner" is actually very bright, experienced and goes by another name.

NemesisCalling | Jun 6, 2017 2:03:54 PM | 62
b,

Outstanding reporting, b. I saw a report on the microlending "phenomenon" in India on PBS a long time ago. It was heralded then. I'll have to dive into your link to survey the damage. Thx again.

h | Jun 6, 2017 2:06:17 PM | 63
Hey b, John Kiriakou chimed in saying "@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy"

And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill. Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept?

WorldBLee | Jun 6, 2017 2:06:58 PM | 64
Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow! to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive". They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers behind it, or truly rock the boat.
4mas | Jun 6, 2017 2:15:02 PM | 65
There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual interference with voting system beyond data gathering. But now we have a leaker who's social media bills her as part of the resistance. And in this environment, how are the optics going to look like prosecuting someone who is being passed off as having leaked evidence of malfeasance? I think they rushed too quickly to publish.
BilboBaggeshott | Jun 6, 2017 2:28:40 PM | 66
Nice to see so many finally coming to the realisation that Greenwald, Poitras and the Intercept are disinfo operatives.... Waiting for the rest of you to begin questioning The Snowjob too.
jfl | Jun 6, 2017 2:34:09 PM | 67
pence smells blood in the water ... Russia, Iran and terrorism are top global threats - Pence
"From the Russian attempts to redraw international borders by force, to Iran destabilizing the Middle East, and to the global threat of terrorism, which affects people everywhere. It seems that the world has become much more dangerous today than ever since the fall of communism, about a quarter of a century ago,"- he said at a meeting of vice-president.

... pence is running for president ... in 2017?

Piotr Berman | Jun 6, 2017 2:37:15 PM | 68
Actually, it is a good question how Winner got the access to the file. "Top Secret" is actually a low level of secrecy, without specific restriction who "needs to know" it. Practical problem for the wanna be leaker is to find "a needle in the haystack". Probably the chain of folders had self-explanatory names, which is like posting in on the billboard for all and sundry working for NSA. That in itself can be "leaking with a borrowed hand".

The content does not seem to be secret in the sense of revealing "sources and methods", just a scrubbed analysis with conclusions. A major part of the mission of intelligence agency to to careful draw conclusions from the gathered data so they are useful to the decision makers: access to information allows to engage in disinformation. But what to do with the obsolete analysis, prepared for the PDM, previous decision maker? Post it on a billboard, if you still like PDM.

Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That can improve the discipline in the shop.

Poor girl. But those Intercept people, why they did not at least re-type the document before showing it to anyone?

blues | Jun 6, 2017 2:41:19 PM | 69
=>> Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 11:24:33 AM | 44

This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs (the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically, they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world. For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate of the losers. They are all the same.

And speaking of psyops and propaganda, the Deep State (of course there is a deep state (the neolords) whom common selves cannot comprehend) is now in the business of producing psyoperative YouTube videos. See if you can spot the subliminal propaganda in this one (hint -- it is not at all about how Russians perceive Americans):

RUSSIAN MILLENNIALS SPEAK OPENLY ABOUT AMERICA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFklhWu3d3E

From The Hague | Jun 6, 2017 2:57:46 PM | 71
Posted by: BilboBaggeshott | Jun 6, 2017 2:28:40 PM | 66

How to Identify a CIA Limited Hangout Operation http://tarpley.net/2013/06/19/how-to-identify-a-cia-limited-hangout-operation/

Peter AU | Jun 6, 2017 3:02:36 PM | 72
Sounds like a con job from start to finish. Along the lines of bellingcat, SOHR ect. Just another method of disseminating propaganda.
Anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:04:42 PM | 73
hophely:

"How on Earth do these kids ( Winner) manage to get that kind of jobs?"

Exactly! I thought you had to be very special, bright and so on to get this kind of jobs here we have a 25 year old girl, that is named...Reality Winner and she has social media where she posts alot of selfies of herself and have a twitter feed like high school student. She seems quite dorky to me. That she has already been in and out of the air force is even more bizarre. This is the kind of morons ruling this world.

anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:10:44 PM | 74
The Intercept article is as inept as the NSA document! it's mostly a cartoon, and things like guessing corporate emails are hardly espionage - they are normal ways of figuring out how to contact people in the professional world, NOT a security threat. Phishing them ought to be illegal, but clearly the FBI doesn't give a crap until it happens to Clinton's campaign chair. At least it is SO common that normal people KNOW not to fall for it. what a bunch of drivel! If the NSA had any actual intelligence that the origin of the emails was Russia, you would think that might be part of the explanation, but the cartoon only says "probably within"...

Then the Intercept spends pages (and pages) arguing for more $$ for the NSA (!) and to centralize control of US elections to the federal level where all this 'insecurity' can be properly controlled by responsible people (like the NSA, or the POTUS).

Topping that off was Amy Goodman showing an interview with a Clinton mouthpiece trumpeting propaganda that this whole "Russian" scheme is a way to get contact info of registered voters to aim "fake news" at them....... anybody here who is a registered voter knows that the minute you sign up you are permanently on the list for daily piles of glossy lies from PACS and nightly phone surveys about what crafted message would work 'if the election were held today'. Where I live, the Dems have so much money that they poll the crap out of us during city-level campaigns. (and after the election they can't be bothered with what their voters care about.)

this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to Russian data.

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:16:17 PM | 75
Glenn Greenwald is a puppet http://smoloko.com/ The Intercept consistently strongly campaigned for globalist Macron by repeatedly disparaging Le Pen as "Holocaust denier", see https://theintercept.com/2017/04/27/le-pen-promotes-holocaust-denier-plans-ban-kosher-butchers-yarmulkes/. Glenn Greenwald is a gay Jew https://twitter.com/FullGoy
anon | Jun 6, 2017 3:20:27 PM | 76
I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final coin-toss.

really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing?

PavewayIV | Jun 6, 2017 3:37:14 PM | 77
People - please stop the insanity.

Greenwald/Intercept?

The firewall set up by (or at least 'persuaded' by) the U.S. intelligence to toss out a few useless Snowden scraps to the peons? Why would the Intercept NOT report report this to their intel masters? Does anyone here really think 1) the Intercept has NOT been compromised since day one, 2) everybody and and everything at the Intercept is NOT closely monitored by the intel community? They probably have a department just for the Intercept. So whether the Intercept actually ratted out Winner is irrelevant - the NSA probably knows what flavor of coffee the mail guy at the Intercept was holding when he picked up the previously examined mail. The only way any Top Secret document is making its way to the Intercept is if the NSA or FBI created and mailed the document themselves. And if the alleged journalist did not report receipt of the document to the FBI, then THEY would face jail time if the FBI found it during a raid.

How did Winner come about this information?

Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there).

Why on earth would someone in that position have ANY Top Secret memos on Russian hackers or the election. Do people really think there is (at her workplace) a network-accessible folder labeled 'Top Secret' that anyone with a Top Secret clearance can browse through? No - that's not how it works. Does anyone think they have a 'Top Secret' mailing list to distribute memos? Nope. In fact, can ANYONE give me the least plausible reason why some nobody Arabic-language translator would ever even be able to SEE a Top Secret memo regarding a subject she has absolutely no involvement with?

Computers at Intel Agencies

If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of the day.

Printing

I won't belabor the point, but everything from all the security, monitoring and logging items above apply moreso for printing anything. Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. Presuming she did the impossible and get a Top Secret document printed out (which would all be logged), how did she get it out of her controlled-access area and the building itself? Hide it in her purse? Tell the guard, "I'm taking this folder of top secret stuff home to work on, but it's OK - I have a top secret clearance..."

All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT.

Impossible Conclusion

Now given all the above and her knowledge of how all that works, does anyone think she's STILL going to naively print out and mail a hard copy of Top Secret information to a known compromised, well-monitored news site... because she doesn't like Trump??

Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way.

Why would she do this then? Well, if she knew she wasn't really going to be tried to go to prison and the NSA is 'in' on it, then I'm sure there's a large check waiting for her somewhere. How much do you think it would take to buy out a translator from her crappy .gov job? Plus, she gets to stick it to Trump and those evil Russians. It's a win-win!

Maybe I'm too cynical nowadays, but this whole thing is preposterous beyond belief. Am I the only one that thinks this whole thing stinks to high heaven? I'm amazed the bar is so low for these fabrications.

Merlin2 | Jun 6, 2017 3:47:26 PM | 78
For james #53 and all who want to be amused: it's all so poetic!

https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/6fkoe1/reality_winner_reality_for_winners/

I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp. Her employer probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end.

Why her? the name, of course - sends a nice message. And her youth - get a little sympathy going. from a gullible public (not any of us though).

Rusty Pipes | Jun 6, 2017 4:09:32 PM | 80
The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy job checking up on their source.
the pair | Jun 6, 2017 4:14:02 PM | 81
thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what an effective and professional attack would actually look like). the thought that a macro in a word file (who lets those run by default anyway?) could pivot into some elaborate firmware/hardware exploit is just dumb. even the article mentions that machines and procedures vary from state to state and even city to city. seems like a lot of work to put into changing votes for a few thousand people.

as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's.

i've been reading douglas valentine's book on the phoenix program and other CIA criminality https://www.amazon.com/CIA-Organized-Crime-Illegal-Operations/dp/0997287012

and he makes a lot of the points you do here regarding the intercept. as much as i respect greenwald, he and the other top tier hires don't need that site. they've got enough leverage to start their own site or even just stick to facebook and/or twitter and then "third party" out to big sites. this would give them exposure without tying them down to one billionaire with his own agendas and biases.

glenn used to have some oddly toxic opinions (anti-chavez whining and supposed initial support for the iraq war) and came around. he's not a dummy. i also doubt he has any malevolent intentions given his charitable work in brazil and what seems like genuine concern for "the law" and privacy and etc.

the documents were trusted to him and a few others. there was a reason for that. every non-journalist (and i include many intercept writers in that group) since is just a parasite using him and the documents as a host. time to swat them away and be truly indie. (not holding my breath).

side note: "reality winner"? wow. when i first saw the headlines i thought she was a former contestant on "big brother" or something. we'll see how much vocal support she gets from the democrats. again - not holding breath.

stumpy | Jun 6, 2017 4:34:04 PM | 83
It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept? Why not the NYtimes or wapo? Just like the dossier a few months ago, generated some smoke but in the end its a weak petard. Did Sessions tamp it down?
Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6, 2017 4:38:46 PM | 84
Coincidence that this just happened? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/michael-moore-launches-trumpileaks-website-calls-whistleblowers-1010640
Sibel Edmonds | Jun 6, 2017 4:51:45 PM | 85
Thank you 'Moon of Alabama' for publishing this solid piece and warning future whistleblowers. Kudos to you!

Regards, Sibel Edmonds (FBI Whistleblower; Founder & Editor of Newsbud)

somebody | Jun 6, 2017 5:03:06 PM | 86
Posted by: Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6, 2017 4:38:46 PM | 84

No, wikileaks kind of recommends it.

@wikileaks 24

Michael Moore's #Trumpileaks is not secure enough to protect sources with classified information but it is better than many newspapers.

karlof1 | Jun 6, 2017 5:12:51 PM | 87
Paveway IV @77--

It's becoming more difficult daily to find something that doesn't stink. I see it as an attempt to further bury the censored NBC interview with Putin where he explained several hard truths, one of which I alluded to yesterday. Compare vid here, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/nbc-edited-out-putins-hard-truths-heres.html with uncensored one here, which includes transcript, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54688

I strongly urge bar patrons to read transcript or watch uncensored vid and cease wasting time on all the related "nonsense."

blues | Jun 6, 2017 5:25:10 PM | 88
=>> Sibel Edmonds | Jun 6, 2017 4:51:45 PM | 85

No comment.

Corbett & Edmonds Call Out Nauseating Russia Worship in Alt Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijdMfUdLfTw

Anon | Jun 6, 2017 5:32:25 PM | 89
blues 88

Like watching desperate housewife talking about foreign policy, but I guess one shouldnt be surprised about her views coming being a fmr. FBI agent.

james | Jun 6, 2017 5:39:47 PM | 90
@77 paveway... thanks.. you are preaching to the choir here.. none of the story adds up, but the intercept is one bs outfit plain and simple..

@78/79 merlin.. thanks.. we see it much the same!

this ''russia did it memo'' is so friggin' boring... the usa has lost it's creative imagination if it ever had one to begin with... hollywood is over and one with.. give it up hollywash..

ruralito | Jun 6, 2017 5:40:23 PM | 91
@88, thanks. My estimation of C & E just took a big hit.

aaaa | Jun 6, 2017 5:50:10 PM | 92
@82 I remember reading that some crazy number, like 6 million people have security clearances. That's a lot of people that signed up to keep quiet. I guess a lot of it relates to basic military stuff, or controlled technology like aircraft parts or whatever.

Marym | Jun 6, 2017 6:00:49 PM | 93
PavewayIV @ 77

Farsi, it's Afghan version Dari, and Pashto are Indo-European > Indo-Iranian, languages, not Arabic languages, though they use the Arabic script.

brian | Jun 6, 2017 6:05:16 PM | 94
who are these Intercept guys? the billionaire seems to hire anyone

'Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim'

DC | Jun 6, 2017 6:15:00 PM | 95
She speaks Farsi and Pashto, I bet she's CIA who's been promised a lot of $$$ after she serves a short prison term. It's my guess that what she provided to The Intercept was given to her after it was manufactured or "doctored". The info published by The Intercept should be considered as suspicious.

aaaa | Jun 6, 2017 6:20:45 PM | 96
@94 there was some recent expose on the intercept that was quite damning, but I can't remember the content

PavewayIV | Jun 6, 2017 6:35:50 PM | 97
Marym@93 - Thanks. I hesitated to just say 'Iranian' because that didn't seem quite right, but 'Arabic' is obviously wrong. Hey, I'm American. I couldn't even tell you where Farsiland or Pastonia are on a map. I think... somewhere by Italy? No, wait...

dh | Jun 6, 2017 6:48:22 PM | 98
@95 Sounds right. She won't get the full Chelsea Manning treatment. Just a naive patriotic young American girl who did the right thing. Obviously she was tricked into using that copier. Couple of months and she''ll get a job at Fox.
@98 ....which she will turn down for a better offer at CNN.

Posted by: dh | Jun 6, 2017 6:55:18 PM | 99

@98 ....which she will turn down for a better offer at CNN.

Posted by: dh | Jun 6, 2017 6:55:18 PM | 99

JerseyJeffersonian | Jun 6, 2017 7:12:49 PM | 100
Remember when Greenwald's Brazilian boyfriend was being held by the authorities and accused of smuggling information from Snowden? Then he got released. Hmm.

Wonder if there was some sort of agreement to the effect that if Greenwald played ball, possible prosecution against said boyfriend would be held in abeyance. This is a tactic employed by government lawyers in some cases when they want something. Like a slow-walking of releases from Snowden's revelations, for instance. And maybe some other dirty business when wanted by the powers that be, like this "leak" that the NSA thought something could be true , but with the leak not containing any proof or any supporting raw intelligence.

Holding a sword over the head of the boyfriend might be just the ticket. And couple that with speculation that Snowden's documents contained revelations about Greenwald's boss, Pierre Omidyar. Maybe an offer that Greenwald and company could not refuse.

Speculation on my part, of course. But not the first time that such tactics have been deployed.

[Jun 04, 2017] An Expanding Bloodbath in Iraq by Robert Parry

Jun 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

January 17, 2015

Originally from: Neocons The 'Anti-Realists' By Robert Parry

In the rush to war in Iraq, the neocons and the liberal interventionists won hands down in 2002-2003 but ended up causing a bloodbath for the people of Iraq, with estimates of those killed ranging from hundreds of thousands to more than a million. But the U.S. invaders did more than that. They destabilized the entire Middle East by disturbing the fragile fault lines between Sunni and Shiite.

With Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein ousted and hanged, Iraq's vengeful Shiite politicians established their own authoritarian state under the military wing of the U.S. and British armies. Neocon hubris made matters worse when many former Sunni officials and officers were cashiered and marginalized, creating fertile ground for al-Qaeda to put down roots among Iraqi Sunnis, planting a particularly brutal strain nourished by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq attracted thousands of foreign Sunni jihadists eager to fight both the Westerners and the Shiites. Others went to Yemen to join Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Trained in the brutal methods of these Iraqi and Yemeni insurgencies, hardened jihadists returned to their homes in Libya, Syria, Europe and elsewhere.

Though the disaster in Iraq should have been a powerful cautionary tale, the neocons and the liberal interventionists proved to be much more adept at playing the political-propaganda games of Washington than in prevailing in the complex societies of the Middle East.

Instead of being purge en masse, the Iraq War instigators faced minimal career accountability. They managed to spin the Iraq "surge" as "victory at last" and maintained their influence over Washington even under President Obama, who may have been a "closet realist" but who kept neocons in key posts and surrounded himself with liberal interventionists. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Surge Myth's Deadly Result ."]

Thus, Obama grudgingly was enlisted into the next neocon-liberal-interventionist crusades in 2011: the military intervention to overthrow Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and the covert operation to remove Syria's Bashar al-Assad. In both cases, the propaganda was ramped up again, presenting the opposition groups as "pro-democracy moderates" who were peacefully facing down brutal dictators.

In reality, the oppositions were more a mixed bag of some actual moderates and Islamist extremists. When Gaddafi and Assad emphasizing the presence of terrorists struck back brutally, the "R2P" crowd demanded U.S. military intervention, either directly in Libya or indirectly in Syria. With the U.S. mainstream media onboard, nearly every occurrence was put through the propaganda filter that made the regimes all dark and the oppositions bathed in a rosy glow.

After the U.S.-led air war destroyed Gaddafi's military and opened the way for an opposition victory, Gaddafi was captured and brutally murdered. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who might be called a "neocon-lite," joked: "We came, we saw, he died."

But the chaos that followed Gaddafi's death was not so funny, contributing to the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, and to the spreading of terrorism and violence across northern Africa. By July 2014, the U.S. and other Western nations had abandoned their embassies in Tripoli as all political order broke down.

[Jun 04, 2017] More felonies committed by the American Espionage Spies (leakers)

There is a special term for those folk who are mainly involved in justified their own existence: "national security parasites". Their existence does increase chances of accidental war with Russia or China because want to defend not the USA, but their lucrative positions and streams of income. that requires certain level of hostilities to be maintained.
Let's assume that Russians are the US enemies. If so, them recent leaks sound like betrayal of Bretchey Part efforts to decode enigma during WWII. Some damned traitors in Washington have just told the Russians that their top secret communications have been cracked. Its a bit like the BBC broadcasting that German enigma machine/ code has been cracked. If true, huge advantage, considerable amount of money and efforts of NSA (as well taxpayers money) just disappeared in thin air. And today's electronic cipher gear is much more sophisticated than in the era of Enigma and therefore the loss is so much greater that hypethetical BBC brodcast.
Notable quotes:
"... What do you think? Would their initials be JB, JC and AS? What do you think? Do you think these "Russian government officials" were discussing such matters on unencrypted, open circuits? No? Well, if these intercepts and decrypts were of classified, secret Russian communications traffic, then the leaker spies have disclosed SCI COMINT. But I suppose they are above the law. " The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence." ..."
"... That means that the US spies were above the working level in the US IC. I will say nothing of the role played by CNN in this betrayal of the United States. ..."
"... By long standing legal precedent journalistic projects are immune from prosecution for disclosing government secrets, but I am filled with a great contempt for them. Are the principal spies acting alone? I would think not. The government has many seditionists within it. ..."
"... That JC guy just made quite interesting remarks in an NBC interview. "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Jews were doing and just the historical practices of the Jews, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Jewish technique." Isn't that some deeply fascist stuff to say? ..."
"... b, JC claims "Russia is not our friend." Could he really be so naive as to believe that nations have friends? One could argue more damage has been done to US security by some of our "friends" than our "enemies"- for example, its unclear how NK has hurt US security to date. ..."
"... First of all, Kushner supposedly "ASKED" to do this, not actually "DID" this. Would "ASKING" to do this be just as treasonous an act as if he had "DONE" this? If so, that brings me to . . . Second of all, the Overt Act which must be witnessed by 2 people at the same time . . . must be in direct assistance to an overt enemy declared to be in a State of War against America. Did this Overt Act, if indeed it was one, seek to render assistance to an Overt Enemy in a State of War against America? No. Because Russia is not an Overt Enemy in any Declared State of War. ..."
"... Now . . . is Russia a "covert enemy"? Or maybe just a "covert adversary"? Maybe so. In which case, broadcasting to the world including most of all to Russia itself that we can decrypt their most sensitive strongestly-encrypted communications destroys our ability to do that decrypting. And THAT is a highly anti-American thing to have done. ..."
"... Sedition is the right word. We are witnessing the overthrow of POTUS by bunch treacherous bastards. Short of a civil war, is there legal/political way to stop these guys? ..."
"... Sedition isn't any more correct than the foolish talk of treason. Those screaming the loudest about Trump's supposed treason are seeking to used the existing structures of government and the Constitution to oust a sitting president and those around him. They are not trying to overthrow or destroy the government. ..."
"... Their substance is nothing, less than nothing. For foreign governments to wish to find ways to influence an American Administration s completely normal. Do you not think our NATO allies have the same conversations as well as our lovely Israeli friends. What do you think ambassadors do for a living? They advise on how to affect hat? As or Kushner's commo proposal, it was a stupid idea but hardly treasonous. you have to remember that the Trump people were not yet the US government. pl ..."
"... worth noting. jfk opened a back channel to Khrushchev after he was elected and before he was sworn in as president ..."
"... If the Russians really wanted to troll us, members of their embassy staff could hand out cookies to protesters in DC. ..."
"... But the Trump transition was unique in its unwillingness to use the government's communications lines and briefing material for its dealings with many foreign governments, partly because of concern that Obama administration officials might be monitoring the calls.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation.html?_r=0 ..."
"... So the Trump people figured out what any sentient being has known from the very beginning, that the crooked Obama team and their allies in the IC were sweeping up all their communications to derail their political agenda which involved normalizing relations with Russia. ..."
"... Intel has confirmed a Remote Elevation of Privilege bug (CVE-2017-5689) in its Management Technology, on 1 May 2017.[12] Every Intel platform with either Intel Standard Manageability, Active Management Technology, or Small Business Technology, from Nehalem in 2008 to Kaby Lake in 2017 has a remotely exploitable security hole in the IME (Intel Management Engine) ..."
"... Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best hope. Following the Washington Post's disclosure on December 9 that the CIA believed Russia had intervened in the election to help Trump, the agency overnight became the great darling of many Trump critics. ..."
"... Glennon thinks Trump may surprise those who "blithely assume that the security bureaucracy will fight him to the death". As he says "it has never faced the raw hostility of an all out frontal assault from the White House." Indeed his greater concern is that should Trump go all in to quell this rebellion, "splintered and demoralised factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyber attacks, covert action, immigration bands, and mass surveillance." From where things stand right now, that seems like a good problem to have. ..."
May 30, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

" (CNN) Russian government officials discussed having potentially "derogatory" information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.

One source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered on whether the Russians had leverage over Trump's inner circle. The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence that Russians believed "they had the ability to influence the administration through the derogatory information."" CNN (Dana Bash reporting)

----------------

"... two former intelligence officials and a congressional source."

What do you think? Would their initials be JB, JC and AS? What do you think? Do you think these "Russian government officials" were discussing such matters on unencrypted, open circuits? No? Well, if these intercepts and decrypts were of classified, secret Russian communications traffic, then the leaker spies have disclosed SCI COMINT. But I suppose they are above the law. " The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence."

That means that the US spies were above the working level in the US IC. I will say nothing of the role played by CNN in this betrayal of the United States.

By long standing legal precedent journalistic projects are immune from prosecution for disclosing government secrets, but I am filled with a great contempt for them. Are the principal spies acting alone? I would think not. The government has many seditionists within it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/russians-trump-campaign-information/

b , 30 May 2017 at 03:26 PM
That JC guy just made quite interesting remarks in an NBC interview. "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Jews were doing and just the historical practices of the Jews, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Jewish technique." Isn't that some deeply fascist stuff to say?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601

james - b ... , 30 May 2017 at 04:30 PM
yeah, except he said 'Russians' not 'Jews' so he is following the script handed these bozos to the letter religiously..
ISL - b ... , 30 May 2017 at 06:21 PM
b, JC claims "Russia is not our friend." Could he really be so naive as to believe that nations have friends? One could argue more damage has been done to US security by some of our "friends" than our "enemies"- for example, its unclear how NK has hurt US security to date.
Fluesterwitz - b ... , 31 May 2017 at 10:00 AM
That will teach me to read the comments before going to the poisoned source. You had me there. I suppose as 'Russians' really means 'Commies' anyway, it's not really that bad. /s
james , 30 May 2017 at 03:36 PM
these bozos need to focus on how they have been bought and paid for by israel and saudi arabia.. russia is like some fly on the side of an elephant.. no one is talking about the elephant for good reason... they are a bunch of liars and sycophants either way..
bks , 30 May 2017 at 03:39 PM
There comes a time when the public should be informed. POTUS committing treason is one of those times.
Jack - bks ... , 30 May 2017 at 04:25 PM
Clearly you are a political partisan. And in your hatred of Trump quite willing to sell out the US.

The only evidence of treason is by two former intelligence officials and a congressional source, who have leaked the ability of the US to decrypt secure communication of the Russians. Maybe they'll get the noose if such crimes are ever prosecuted.

iowa steve - , 30 May 2017 at 06:18 PM
Why do we assume the "leaked information" is true and not something entirely made up by the "sources" and handed to the always credulous media?
Jack - , 31 May 2017 at 09:30 PM
If it is all made up, then what would you call propagating false information by high national intelligence officials in collusion with national media to take down a legitimate POTUS?
Ghostship - , 30 May 2017 at 11:46 PM
It's far more likely that they're just making this stuff up. Are they ever going to be required to repeat this stuff under oath or even produce evidence of their claims? I very much doubt it.
Fred - bks ... , 31 May 2017 at 12:59 PM
Bks,

Obama is now an ex-president. Better late than never though.

turcopolier , 30 May 2017 at 04:00 PM
bks

You have no evidence whatever of any treasonous behavior on Trump's part. This is mere slander. You are an obvious political troll. pl

Matthew - turcopolier ... , 31 May 2017 at 09:30 AM
Col: The slander stems from the belief that the Establishment makes legitimate policy, and the Elected President must ask their permission. To me, this attitude is a wholesale rejection of our constitutional system.
Freudenschade , 30 May 2017 at 04:20 PM
Col.,

"ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

We know your opinion of the leakers, but what about their substance?

jonst - , 31 May 2017 at 06:14 AM
Substantively, this (the entire 'Russian Affair, or, employing the mating call of the asshole, RussiaGate, seems like mush, seasoned and spooned to the American Public with a whole lotta adjectives (like the guy above, "treasonous" and such), and sold as steak.
bks , 30 May 2017 at 04:21 PM
Excommunicate me if you must, but Kushner asking to use encrypted communications from the Russian embassy is the very definition of treason.
sid_finster - bks ... , 30 May 2017 at 05:39 PM
Explain how. Do you even know what treason is?
different clue - bks ... , 30 May 2017 at 06:35 PM
bks,

First of all, Kushner supposedly "ASKED" to do this, not actually "DID" this. Would "ASKING" to do this be just as treasonous an act as if he had "DONE" this? If so, that brings me to . . . Second of all, the Overt Act which must be witnessed by 2 people at the same time . . . must be in direct assistance to an overt enemy declared to be in a State of War against America. Did this Overt Act, if indeed it was one, seek to render assistance to an Overt Enemy in a State of War against America? No. Because Russia is not an Overt Enemy in any Declared State of War.

Now . . . is Russia a "covert enemy"? Or maybe just a "covert adversary"? Maybe so. In which case, broadcasting to the world including most of all to Russia itself that we can decrypt their most sensitive strongestly-encrypted communications destroys our ability to do that decrypting. And THAT is a highly anti-American thing to have done.

MRW - bks ... , 31 May 2017 at 06:13 AM
Kushner asking to use encrypted communications from the Russian embassy is the very definition of treason.

Treason? You're a nutcase.

lucopter , 30 May 2017 at 04:37 PM
Sedition is the right word. We are witnessing the overthrow of POTUS by bunch treacherous bastards. Short of a civil war, is there legal/political way to stop these guys? Would it help if Trump calls for a million man march in DC?
The Twisted Genius - , 30 May 2017 at 08:09 PM
lucopter,

Sedition isn't any more correct than the foolish talk of treason. Those screaming the loudest about Trump's supposed treason are seeking to used the existing structures of government and the Constitution to oust a sitting president and those around him. They are not trying to overthrow or destroy the government.

Trump certainly could call for a million man march, but he better be certain he could generate crowds at least as big as the women's march. Anything less would backfire.

We may see something big happening on twitter soon. Trump's two twitter accounts have gained over five million followers in the last three days. Most are empty bot accounts which have no activity. Accounts are being added at a hundred bots an hour. Many people are reporting their accounts are now following the Trump and related bot accounts without authorization. Some are unfollowing and blocking Trump only to have their accounts reconnecting to the Trump accounts. People are being advised to change their passwords and disable any twitter related apps. My guess is that some kind of shit is about to hit the fan.

Jack - The Twisted Genius ... , 31 May 2017 at 09:26 PM
TTG, Sir

The Twitter bot anarchy on Trump's feed is all par for the course in this period of incredible developments in software. The rapid iteration cycle is moving even faster than even experts can comprehend.

Hillary right on cue is now claiming that a thousand Russian agents on Facebook and bots on Twitter upended her "sure thing" campaign. Pathetic!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4560344/Hillary-Trump-colluded-Russia-create-fake-news.html

She raised over a billion dollars. Why didn't she hire 10,000 Indians and Chinese click fraudsters and all those snowflake kids to swamp social media? IMO, this entitled mindset is exactly why voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania rejected her for even Trump.

Political campaigns have always been a blood sport. As they say, all's fair in love and war.

The Twisted Genius - , 01 June 2017 at 04:44 PM
Jack,

I think we're pretty much in agreement here. All elections from this point on are going to be full on info ops using every psychological and technological trick in the book. This is why I think we should study what the Russians did in 2016 in detail. I'd like the electorate to be as aware of all these info op/marketing techniques as possible. Then we should study what the Trump and Clinton campaigns did and didn't do. What we'll find it the Clinton and the DNC ran a coal powered campaign while Trump and the RNC ran a turbo-diesel campaign and the Russians ran a nuclear campaign. It just happened that Trump, the RNC and the Russians were eventually working towards the same goal - defeat Clinton. That doesn't necessarily mean there was any collusion or witting cooperation between Trump and the Russians.

This certainly isn't the whole story. Clinton stood for staying the course, more of the same with a strong possibility of a hot war with Russia thrown in as a bonus. Trump stood for trying something else. Given the strikingly divided nature of the electorate, that kind of battle of ideas is a 50-50 proposition at best. There was no sure thing.

Fred - The Twisted Genius ... , 01 June 2017 at 05:26 PM
TTG,

There are quite a few other state and non-state actors involved also.

Jack - The Twisted Genius ... , 01 June 2017 at 07:00 PM
TTG, Sir

"All elections from this point on are going to be full on info ops using every psychological and technological trick in the book ."

Weren't political campaigns always attempts at persuasion and dissuasion? There's just more tools available now and people are more connected and acquire information from a larger number of sources.

It's not Trump's & the Russians fault that Hillary ran a "coal-powered campaign". She had all the money and the same tools that at least Trump had. Bottom line is she didn't execute well and consequently didn't bring home the bacon. No different than two teams playing in a championship game, where the winner typically executes better.

Also, didn't the Brits, French, Israelis, Chinese, and Saudis get involved too? You can't blame anyone from trying their darndest to not have the US arrow on their back. After all, many have an existential interest, considering the track record of the US in mindlessly intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

The real insidious aspect is the post-election info op by elements in our IC and it seems from David Habbakuk's posts the British IC, as well as the MSM. This has some serious traitorous behavior that if not nipped now will morph into something even more dangerous. IMO, when the immense power of the national security apparatus gets subverted to overturn a legitimate democratic process, we've crossed the threshold to totalitarianism.

turcopolier , 30 May 2017 at 04:54 PM
freudennschade

Their substance is nothing, less than nothing. For foreign governments to wish to find ways to influence an American Administration s completely normal. Do you not think our NATO allies have the same conversations as well as our lovely Israeli friends. What do you think ambassadors do for a living? They advise on how to affect hat? As or Kushner's commo proposal, it was a stupid idea but hardly treasonous. you have to remember that the Trump people were not yet the US government. pl

mauisurfer - turcopolier ... , 30 May 2017 at 05:20 PM
worth noting. jfk opened a back channel to Khrushchev after he was elected and before he was sworn in as president
Freudenschade - turcopolier ... , 31 May 2017 at 08:12 AM
Col.,

Ambassador Kislyak is certainly doing his job. My question wasn't so much about the Russians but rather about the Americans. Is the sum total of the leaks -- if true -- of any concern to you?

Matthew - turcopolier ... , 31 May 2017 at 09:31 AM
If the Russians really wanted to troll us, members of their embassy staff could hand out cookies to protesters in DC.
james - , 31 May 2017 at 12:34 PM
good one!
steve , 30 May 2017 at 05:28 PM
"By long standing legal precedent journalistic projects are immune from prosecution for disclosing government secrets"

I don't especially want the press to have to censor what they publish. As long as it is not something which will obviously place people in jeopardy, they should publish. It should be the job of those in charge in the government to keep stuff from leaking to begin with.

Steve

plantman , 30 May 2017 at 05:36 PM
bks says...

Excommunicate me if you must, but Kushner asking to use encrypted communications from the Russian embassy is the very definition of treason."

Treason??? Even the lowly NY Times disagrees with your extremist analysis. Here's an excerpt from today's paper:

"responding to questions from The Times about the meetings with Mr. Kislyak and Mr. Gorkov, Ms. Hicks said the meetings were part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to improve relations between the United States and Russia, and to identify areas of possible cooperation....

But the Trump transition was unique in its unwillingness to use the government's communications lines and briefing material for its dealings with many foreign governments, partly because of concern that Obama administration officials might be monitoring the calls.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation.html?_r=0

So the Trump people figured out what any sentient being has known from the very beginning, that the crooked Obama team and their allies in the IC were sweeping up all their communications to derail their political agenda which involved normalizing relations with Russia.

Is that what you call "treason"???

Sheesh!

J , 30 May 2017 at 08:12 PM
Colonel,

Speaking of the treasonous shows, did you know that Morning Joe Scarborough and Mika are now engaged? Also, Mika's daddy Zbigniew Brzezinski passed away 4 days ago.

DrFrank , 30 May 2017 at 10:52 PM
I don't see any evidence that Trump's hold on the Presidency is in any real or imminent danger.

The Russia scandal newsfeed is slowing him down a bit, which may not be a bad thing given his reputation for impetuous decision making, lose talk, arrogance when it comes to the details and a tendency to keep it in the family, or at least among loyalists. If the Dems think the Russia thing is going to win them control of the House, they need to think again, it seems to me.

Coronel Lang, there are some things I really don't understand. Perhaps you could explain:

Could it really be a big secret that the IC is able to decrypt Russian communications? I would imagine there is a constant tug of war here: sometimes the US IC is able to do decode and sometimes not, as the systems on both sides are upgraded and changed periodically.

What are the goals of those in the IC who are supposed to be sabotaging Trump? What exactly is it that they are trying to accomplish or prevent?

What precisely are the two side of the controversy over what is the right stance toward Russia and for what reasons? The answer to this could include Syria as well as the Ukraine and NATO.

What was Trump trying to achieve by visiting Saudi Arabia in the way he did and what is to be gained and by whom in making Iran the great enemy? Did he achieve it?

Many thanks if you take a shot at it.

Tidewater , 30 May 2017 at 11:35 PM
Tidewater to All:

The Eurasia Review has an OpEd by "Mina" with the headline: "Washington Post Exposed NSA's Ability to Intercept Chatter from Russian Embassy." It can be googled. Even has a photo of Jared.

Mina refers to and relies on Col. Lang as an authority and notes his shock and outrage at this publishing of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Mina states, among other things: "In other words, for the sake of causing some minor embarrassment to the President, the Washington Post struck a major blow against US intelligence."

Babak Makkinejad - , 01 June 2017 at 10:31 AM
I had watched an analogous phenomenon in post-Revolutionary Iran; the competing political cliques and bands often leaking this or that information in order to harm their political opponents; always being oblivious to the wider damage to the national interests.

Evidently, that sort of extreme parochialism is not confined to Thrid World countries.

fanto , 30 May 2017 at 11:54 PM
Colonel,
Recently you mentioned how tired you are of the 'mendacious BS'. Be assured you are not alone with your fatigue. I am not only tired of it but also deeply shocked, to find myself 50 years later in my old age confronted again with such mendacious BS. In my youth under Soviet domination it was totally impossible to imagine that one day the 'russki' FM would make jokes about how the roles have reversed and the Pravda and Isviestia ('no truth' and 'no news') would have their imitators or heirs in USA. So, Colonel, do not get tired and have a beautiful, restful Birthday! ( and a glass of Champagne will do good ).
Wunduk , 31 May 2017 at 04:52 AM
I vividly imagine Russian analysts now sifting through all Dec. 2016 communications for that remark: able to influence the Trump administration through publication of (financial) derogatory information. Not an easy task, but with the keyword 'financial information' they afterwards will know pretty clearly which frequency and encryption method is no longer good enough.
Why would there be legal protection for the journalists for bloating out this capability, however indirectly, in the absence of a clear public requirement? If the publisher feels there was one they could easily explain it to a court, II assume. Is there not a code of conduct or legal responsibility of each publisher in the United States? And if not wouldn't it be possible to use a copyright infringement law?
Old Microbiologist , 31 May 2017 at 05:32 AM
It is interesting. I saw a clip from CNN yesterday (can't find it now so probably erased from the internet) where they were trying to push a panel of (not-so) "average" Americans to agree with the premise of Russian tampering. To their credit these particular Americans questioned the entire premise and instead turned the tables on the American government questioning credibility of unnamed sources etc. as well as past misdeeds. I was pleasantly surprised at the intelligent answers given and the consternation of the interviewer. But, what is shocking to me were the written responses on the posting many of which were in the grain of "these Americans were treasonous and should be shot". Probably many of the posts were bots but if this is true then the liberals are in deep trouble and in complete denial about what has been happening in the US and especially US foreign policy.

What will be interesting is what the response is going to be when the illegal US base in Syria is attacked by the Syrian Army, perhaps today. This is a put up or shut up moment in history. The same thing is going to happen in North Korea soon. I also noticed a interesting lack of concern for Israel test firing an ICBM (a rogue nation with illegal nuclear weapons), yet we said nothing about it. Korea on the other hand, is the opposite, and we are coming close to war over the same thing.

Regarding the leaks, I believe it is imperative for Trump to find them fast and perhaps maybe have a few shot as these are the real treasonous Americans. I also think he needs to go after Podesta, Soros, McCain et. al. in earnest and remove them from the board. He needs to get ahead of this and start removing obstacles. Playing nice isn't working.

scott douglas , 31 May 2017 at 06:33 AM
As I said to an astonished 'liberal' friend last week, forgoing fruitless confrontation with Russia is a Policy, not a Crime.

A clearly and openly stated policy enunciated during the campaign in prime-time, on many a debate stage. The studied Clinton rebuttal? "You are Putin's puppet!" This is still the only sound we hear from the 'resistance'. No evidence.

Now, six months on, to remind a fellow citizen of the results of the election is become nearly pointless. There is a sputtering madness gripping these deeply misguided partisan defenders of the foreign policy status quo that has become actually dangerous. I thought Trump should have made a number of publicly staged arrests, complete with a Marine detachment and cameras rolling, by now. But instead, Clapper and Brennan are themselves destroying the reputations of the institutions they supposedly cherish, and their compliant media megaphone, with their own ragged flailings.

There will be no impeachment. Check the latest poll. Trump would win more handily today than after this Orwellian blitz has run on for over half a year.

Madness! Of course, I aggressively snapped off the tube when Clapper appeared on PBS last night, so maybe I am becoming infected, too...

Heros , 31 May 2017 at 06:50 AM
Although all the parasites in Washington love to give lip service to things like "the constitution" and "our freedom" their actions since 9/11, and even long before, are proof that this is merely gruel for the serfs. Most of those who started the treason and sedition are long dead or are on deaths door anyway. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.

It is the lower echelons of the parasites deriving their livelihoods off of the state who cling to some kind of legitimacy from government in Washington. Just look at the way the Democrat statists reject and criticism of Hilary with or without proof.

Those of us who have personally experienced the vengefulness and tyranny of the federal government have long given up hope of anything good coming out of that cesspool on the Potomac. We are merely watching the buzzards fighting over the remains of the carcass. There is no such thing as good buzzards or bad buzzards, so we expect nothing from them.

Lars , 31 May 2017 at 06:52 AM
No doubt there is unprecedented leaking going on and the question is: Why? It appears that many in the government are appalled at decisions and maybe even more at how decisions are made. Then there is the problem with having a president who is increasingly being disrespected, which started while he was a candidate. You have to consider that many of his problems are self-inflicted.

Having a beleaguered and weaker presidency is not a good thing. It is starting to resemble the late 60's and early 70's, which is the last time we had a seriously divided nation, with many lasting results and not all of them positive.

It seems that we are inching towards some kind of constitutional crisis and that is not a good thing either.

Thomas - , 31 May 2017 at 02:03 PM
"No doubt there is unprecedented leaking going on and the question is: Why?"

Public revelation that those previously in charge were giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Manpads to Al Qadea. etc. etc.) of the United States for the benefit of another foreign entity. So that entity is having its agents pull out the stops to keep the truth in a dark musty corner.

turcopolier , 31 May 2017 at 09:55 AM
freudenschade

Aside frm the stupidity of wanting to run a back channel in a Russian diplomatic facility, no IMO the "revelations" amount to nothing. The release of the COMINT material to the media is a crime that should be punished with imprisonment. pl

turcopolier , 31 May 2017 at 09:59 AM
Lars

"many in the government" IMO the US spies are either formers like JB, and JC or are politically appointed Obama holdovers. Career government people have it in their DNA NOT to destroy American intelligence capabilities by telling intelligence targets that we can read their traffic. pl

turcopolier , 31 May 2017 at 10:53 AM
DrFrank

"Could it really be a big secret that the IC is able to decrypt Russian communications?" Could it really have been a big secret that the British solved the Enigma cypher system? Yes, it was. Could it really have been a big secret that US Navy and US Army SIGINT people solved the Japanese diplomatic and naval cypher systems? Yes, it was. The Germans and the Japanese understood that it was theoretically possible for their systems to be solved but they did not believe that it could actually be done. As a result the German U Boat fleet was decimated through their position reporting and the Japanese lost four fleet carriers at Midway. If the Germans and Japanese had understood that their communications were compromised these benefits to the Allies would not have occurred. Traffic analysis (look it up)played a major role as well as cryptanalysis. The Russians now KNOW that a umber of their commo systems are compromised and they will go all out to replace these capabilities with others that we will work for years to penetrate. pl

HDL , 31 May 2017 at 11:15 AM
All:

Let' be real careful bandying about words like "treason". The Founders, themselves guilty of treason (in the Crown's eyes), specifically defined what treason is. Treason is the only crime specified in the Constitution"

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

There's lots of other crimes committed by these miscreants and hanging is too good for them. Treason isn't one of them.

Excuse the pedantry.

turcopolier , 31 May 2017 at 12:14 PM
HDL

You must be speaking of someone other than me. I have bee careful not to use the word. pl

David Habakkuk , 31 May 2017 at 01:24 PM
All,

By contrast to the conversations between Kushner and Kislyak, it seems to me possible that the offence here may simply be fabrication of non-existent conversations.

Having stated that 'the FBI would not comment on whether any of the claims discussed in the intercepts have been verified', the CNN report continues:

'But US counterintelligence investigators were already looking into the Russian claims during the summer of 2016, before the public became aware of similar claims in a dossier created for political opponents of Trump by a former British spy. The former spy, Christopher Steele, shared some of those findings with the FBI during the summer of 2016.

'CNN has not been able to verify the allegations about the derogatory information in the dossier, but current and former US officials say some of the Russia-to-Russia conversations in the dossier have been corroborated.'

A number of points.

1. There is ample evidence that in his time as a 'former British spy' Steele pedalled the most outrageous disinformation against leaders MI6 wanted to target. Also, it is material that he is patently not very competent at 'information operations' – the claims he and his associates feed to the media keep changing.

This is not noticed only because, for a variety of reasons, contemporary journalists are happy to act as stenographers for the spooks (however corrupt and incompetent these demonstrably are.) This applies equally, whether the journalists come from the 'right' or the 'left'.

When the story of Steele's involvement with the BuzzFeed dossier first broke in January, the – traditionally right-wing – 'Telegraph' reported that he had been case officer for the late Alexander Litvinenko. However, when he emerged out of hiding in March, the – traditionally left-wing – 'Guardian' reported that:

'Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends. The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea, probably on Putin's orders.

'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.'

(See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/christopher-steelethe-former-british-spy-created-donald-trump/ ; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/07/former-mi6-agent-christopher-steele-behind-trump-dossier-returns-to-work .)

2. If Steele and his associates got leery about drawing attention to his involvement with Litvinenko, they had good reason.

According to the 'Vanity Fair' report linked to in the CNN story, Steele was head of the MI6 Russia Desk from 2004 to 2009. We know that Litvinenko became an MI6 agent prior to 2004, Steele would have had overall charge of his activities when he was disseminating disinformation designed to show, among other things, that the notorious Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had been attempted to secure a 'mini nuclear bomb' for Al Qaeda.

Among many other accusations his agent was disseminating was the claim that Romano Prodi was a KGB/FSB agent. (Time was when this might have worried the 'Guardian' – not now.)

I produced evidence on the 'mini nuclear bomb' claim – only a fragment of a mass of material I brought to the attention of Sir Robert Owen, and most of which he suppressed in his report – in comments Colonel Lang posted on SST after that report was published.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/01/david-hakkuk-on-sir-robert-owens-inquiry.html .)

3. According to the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt, presented in evidence to Owen, and taken at face value by him, Steele's ignorance of his agent's activities was quite phenomenal.

What we are asked to believe is that, immediately following his drinking tea with the dastardly Kremlin agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun on 1 November, Litvinenko suspected they had tried to poison him. What we are also asked to believe is that MI6 knew nothing of this until Litvinenko told Hyatt to 'phone his 'handler', 'Martin' on 20 November.

From the account by Luke Harding of the 'Guardian':

'The interview abruptly stops. It's 5.16pm. Hyatt dials the long telephone number, reaches "Martin", and tells him that Litvinenko is gravely ill in hospital, the victim of an apparent poisoning by two mysterious Russians.

'It appears to be the first time that MI6 – an organisation famed for its professionalism – learns of Litvinenko's plight.'

(See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/alexander-litvinenko-the-man-who-solved-his-own-murder .)

4. So Litvinenko was screaming out that Putin had tried to kill him, and Steele didn't know anything about it? If you believe that, you will believe anything.

The interviews are, transparently, forged, and anyone who thinks that MI6 deserves to be 'famed for its professionalism' is either simply ignorant, or a fool or a knave. (With Harding, it's probably all three together.)

What was actually happening was that Steele and his associates were first trying to keep the whole story of the poisoning under wraps, and then going round in circles trying to find a reasonably convincing means of obscuring the truth. (So too were those in the know in Russian intelligence.)

For the way in which Steele and his minions could not get their accounts of the vehicle(s) by which Litvinenko travelled into London on the day he was supposedly murdered straight, and many other contradictions, see the SST post to which I have linked.

5. What then happens if you look at the BuzzFeed dossier against this background?

What we know is that the latest date on the materials from the DNC which WikiLeaks started publishing on 22 July 2016 is 25 May 2016. We also know that James Comey never got the FBI to look at the DNC servers. Instead he relied upon what is – frankly – a heap of old garbage supplied by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike', starting I think on 15 June.

How can anyone defend this privatisation of a key investigative task? It should be quite sufficient grounds for sacking Comey.

6. On 20 June 2016, if the dossier is to be believed, Christopher Steele was ready with the first installment of his heap of garbage. Unfortunately, it seems that he and Alperovitch did not coordinate their stories – as their accounts of the hacking are totally contradictory.

7. Moreover, the BuzzFeed dossier has now produced three separate lawsuits. The most recent, filed on 26 May, is by Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan of 'Alfa Group'. As the summons notes, the name is spelt incorrectly in the dossier as 'Alpha Group'.

But hell, you don't really expect the head of MI6's Russia Desk to be familiar with the names of one of the most prominent Russian business empires, do you? (If they have an 'America desk', its head probably writes that Bill Gates founded 'Mikrosoft'.)

8. Previously, actions were brought by the internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev – again misspelled, as Gubarov – and his company XBT Holdings against BuzzFeed in Florida and Steele in London. To anyone familiar with the history of Litvinenko's claims, what the BuzzFeed dossier claims about Gubarev looks like vintage Steele:

'[redacted] reported that over the period March-September 2016 a company called XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct "altering operations" against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities linked to one Alexei GUBAROV [sic] were involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, Seva KAPSUGOVICH, were significant players in this operation. In Prague, COHEN agreed contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operations, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary CLINTON won the presidency. It was important in this event that all cash payments owed were made quickly and discreetly and that cyber and that cyber and other operators were stood down / able to go effectively to ground to cover their traces.'

9. On 27 March, lawyers for Gubarev filed a response to BuzzFeed's motion to dismiss, entitled 'Six Ways Buzzfeed Has Misled the Court (Number Two Will Amaze You) and a Picture of a Kitten.' It is entertaining. In the event, the judge ruled in Gubarev's favour.

(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/29/six-ways-buzzfeed-has-misled-the-court-number-two-will-amaze-you-and-a-picture-of-a-kitten/ .)

10. On 4 April, Steele's lawyers filed his defence in the London suit.

(See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/28/trump-russia-intelligence-uk-government-m16-kremlin .

A point of interest in Steele's accounts of his relation with the American company Fusion is summarised in the 'Guardian' account:

'The document said that he passed the memos to Fusion on the understanding that Fusion would not disclose the material to any third parties without the approval of Steele and Orbis. They did agree to Fusion providing a copy to Senator John McCain after the veteran Republican had been told about the existence of Steele's research by Sir Andrew Wood, a former UK ambassador to Moscow and an Orbis associate, at a conference in Canada on 8 November.'

The suggestion that Wood had been involved with Steele's company Orbis for a long time tends to strengthen the impression that its supposedly independent status acted as cover for projects championed by influential circles in the British 'sistema' – and that these were intimately involved in the campaign against Trump.

11. On the role of disingenuous claims about 'SIGINT' in 'information operations', it may be worth looking back at the all-out propaganda offensive that heralded the opening of Owen's travesty of an inquiry. A report in 'The American Interest' was headlined: 'NSA Proves Russia Behind Litvinenko's Murder.'

(See https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/26/nsa-proves-russia-behind-litvinenkos-murder/ .)

At a time when claims made by Steele may be subjected to rather more rigorous scrutiny in the courts than that provided by Owen and his team, and where a collapse in his credibility threatens to have large knock-on effects, it would not be surprising is, as it were, people in the NSA were once again prepared to be cooperative in maintaining his fictions.

The Twisted Genius - David Habakkuk ... , 31 May 2017 at 08:34 PM
David Habakkuk wrote:

"We also know that James Comey never got the FBI to look at the DNC servers. Instead he relied upon what is – frankly – a heap of old garbage supplied by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike', starting I think on 15 June. How can anyone defend this privatisation of a key investigative task?"

I admire your thoroughness and detailed analyses, often excruciatingly detailed, but I take serious issue with this particular statement. I'm afraid you and many others are not at all familiar with how the world of cyber analysis works. Most of the attacks that require analysis and mitigation occur on IT systems belonging to non-governmental entities. These private entities are usually loathe to even admit that they have been hacked. They rely on other private entities like CrowdStrike, Mandiant and McAfee to mitigate these attacks and keep that information out of the press and out of the hands of government. The NDAs covering these relationships are draconian. This has always been the case. Given this environment , IT security companies like CrowdStrike, Mandiant and McAfee have a wider and more in-depth knowledge of worldwide cyber threats than even our NSA.

The FBI and NSA are well aware of this reality and often rely on these private IT security companies for their extended expertise. In 2011 the NSA turned to McAfee for assistance in dealing with a massive intrusion into the networks of several major defense contractors and the compromise of a security technology that was vital to systems in the DOD, IC and the rest of the government. Dmitri Alperovitch was a vital part of that McAfee team. That private security team was instrumental in mitigating the threat and identifying a nation-state actor as the source of that threat. This happens time after time, but we will seldom hear of it. And when we do, we never get the full story or all the evidence. This community is unusually adept in the art of STFU. That and the NDAs are truly draconian.

The FBI has several programs designed to entice private companies to share information about cyber intrusions with the government. I am familiar with one that has a good track record of success. The National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance (NCFTA) is a non-profit corporation founded in 2002 in Pittsburgh, PA. It is the brain child of a particularly enlightened FBI Special Agent. He explained the delicate relationships he developed with private companies based on mutual trust. There was never any Fed flashing of badges and demands for cooperation. That approach is always counterproductive. But this is a small effort given the size of the FBI and the magnitude of the cyber intrusion problem.

This is the world I worked in for a decade. And this is why I find your question of "how anyone defend this privatisation of a key investigative task?" to be so off the mark.

David Habakkuk - The Twisted Genius ... , 01 June 2017 at 01:27 PM
TTG,

I will apologise – up to a point – for the fact that my analyses are often 'excruciatingly detailed.'

There is however one good reason for this, as well as some bad ones.

Over the years, it has become clear to me that, in many 'information operations', it is convenient for people in the United States to have key parts run out of Britain. So it becomes important to try to provide to Americans the detailed information which might enable them to expose the pernicious effect 'loops of lies' running between Washington and London may have on the politics of both countries.

As to 'CrowdStrike'. A rather important point is that this was not a private contractor chosen by the FBI – but one brought in by the DNC. As a central question was whether what was at issue was a leak or a hack, and if it was the former that organisation had every reason to want to cover it up, even leaving out all other matters, 'CrowdStrike' should not have been accepted as objective by the FBI.

Then, however, look at the sequence – which brings up the question of British involvement.

When he pointed to 'Fancy Bear' and 'Cozy Bear' as having been responsible for hacking the DNC on 16 June 2016, Alperovitch explained that 'their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none etc etc.' He went on at length about how virtuoso they were supposed to be – confronted by Moriarty-figures like this, only sleuths with Sherlock Holmes-like powers like himself could expect to cope.

It was on the following day that a site called 'Ars Tecnica' published the revelations which appeared to indicate that, in fact, the hackers had clumsily left indications pointing unambiguously to a Russian origin – most notably, the Christian name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky.

These had, apparently, been 'teased out of the documents and noted on Twitter by an independent security researcher who goes by the handle PwnAllTheThings.' This, it turned out, was a certain Mark Tait.

On 28 July, Tait produced a post on the 'Lawfare' site, entitled 'On the Need for Official Attribution of Russia's DNC Hack.'

(See https://www.lawfareblog.com/need-official-attribution-russias-dnc-hack .)

The bio accompanying the article reads:

'Matt Tait is the CEO and founder of Capital Alpha Security, a UK based security consultancy which focuses on research into software vulnerabilities, exploit mitigations and applied cryptography. Prior to founding Capital Alpha Security, Tait worked for Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'

Note that: 'worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'

The story Tait tells reads to me, as classic 'information operations' – how initially he did not believe the 'CrowdStrike' revelations, and then was converted after the document dump by 'Guccifer 2.0' – and the damning evidence of the 'Felix Edmundovich'.

Of this he writes:

'It's an operational security failure by a group whose malware was riddled with other basic operational security failures. While amusing at first, the hackers' attempts to address it in future leaks was so overt and ham-fisted that it just served to highlight the initial error.'

Perhaps Tait and Alperovitch should get together and try and get their story straight. What are the FSB and in particular GRU hackers supposed to be – criminal masterminds, or incompetent petty thieves who even Inspector Lestrade could expose in twenty-minutes?

And then Tait also mentions Thomas Rid, of King's College.

In the 'information operations' designed to allow the American, and British, governments, to hand Syria over to the jihadists, and empower people wearing lightly modified versions of the 'Black Sun' and 'Wolfsangel' symbols in Ukraine, Eliot Higgins, who first ran the 'Brown Moses Blog', and now runs 'Bellingcat', has played a crucial role.

As you will have seen, Professor Theodore Postol of MIT is back trying to scotch the latest 'Bellingcat' lies.

If you do a few quick Google searches, you will find that Higgins is a 'Nonresident Senior Fellow, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Future Europe Initiative' at the Atlantic Council . You will also find that Dmitri Alperovitch is 'Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative' at the Atlantic Council.

You will also find that Higgins is 'Visiting Research Associate' at the 'Centre for Science and Security Studies' at King's College, London. If you google Thomas Rid, you will find that he is 'Professor of Security Studies' in the 'Department of War Studies' at the same institution.

Among the sources of funding which Higgins has acknowledged is Google – for whom, apparently, Mark Tait worked, after leaving GCHQ.

And then, on top of all this, we have the appearance of Christopher Steele in a key role in the 'information operations' intended to establish that the WikiLeaks material originated from Russian hacking, rather than an internal leak.

As I have been 'excrucriatingly detailed' enough for one post, I will not go into my encounters with Sir Lawrence Freedman, who was instrumental in shaping the War Studies Department at King's, and also in persuading that dolt Tony Blair that it was a good idea to invade Iraq – and was then appointed to the Chilcot Inquiry team. Suffice it to say that I know that he is simply a different version of idiot.

Nor will I revisit what I have already said about Steele.

But really, if citizens of the United States are prepared to see someone corrupt former employees of British intelligence like Tait and Steele play a major role in the attempted reversal of the results of a Presidential election, then on your own heads be it.

What did Franklin say: 'A republic, if you can keep it.'

Babak Makkinejad - David Habakkuk ... , 01 June 2017 at 03:18 PM
I think there is no other way than investigating things in great details - into the weeds, so to speak - in this case as many others.

One used to be able to rely upon the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Des Moines Register, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune for that; also, all of that has disappeared over the last 20 years or so.

NPR was very good, almost as good as the old BBC, before Reagan gutted it and it never recovered.

Byzantine bureaucracy had a lot of influence on policy.


The Twisted Genius - David Habakkuk ... , 01 June 2017 at 10:21 PM
David Habakkuk,

No need for any apologies. It was a tongue-in-cheek observation, not a complaint. As far as Alperovitch and CrowdStrike goes, I think we can all benefit from more excruciating details than you have provided. Dimitri is one of those Russians who learned how to code on a blackboard rather than on a keyboard. I've had up close and personal relationships with a number of these types. The best of the Russian hackers came from this group. These old school hackers do recognize the virtuosity in a piece of code and can wax poetic about it. It's just their nature. On the other hand, there are very few hackers of this caliber still in the hacking business today. Most are now one step away from script kiddies. That is the bulk of the patriotic Russian hackers who Putin referred to today as possibly involved in the election hacking. I have personally witnessed this methodology of guiding an army of non-governmental patriotic hackers to achieve governmental objectives on several occasions.

The FBI called on Dimitri to help guide one of their premier long term undercover cyber operations. In 2005 he worked with SA Keith Mularski establishing the very successful Dark Net operation. Keith, who I know well, thinks very highly of Dimitri. Throughout his career he specialized in threat intelligence. He had several years of experience tracking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear intrusions before he began the DNC investigation. In all situations I know where attribution is made, a multi-year investigation is part of the process. Researchers like Jeff Carr are right to point out that attribution from a single intrusion is damned near impossible. I also doubt CrowdStrike hung their claim of attribution on the Dzerzhinsky thing. These are the types of things Dimitri coached Keith to avoid in the Dark Net operation. This is why the NSA called on him and McAfee to assist in some of their investigations.

You are right in pointing out that it was the DNC who chose CrowdStrike rather than the FBI. However, this is how these investigations always work. The client decides who does the investigation and when that investigation is released to the FBI (if at all). The head of the CrowdStrike team that did the on site investigation at the DNC was Shawn Henry, the former head of the FBI Cyber Division. I'm fairly certain the FBI was quite satisfied with who did the investigation.

HDL , 31 May 2017 at 03:26 PM
Certainly not you, sir.
J , 31 May 2017 at 05:29 PM
Colonel,

These journos sure know how to wreck a battlefield don't they.

Gordon Wilson , 31 May 2017 at 09:39 PM
Colonel I have refrained from any posting anywhere for any reason for months, but since the discussion seems to turn to decryption so often I thought you might be interested in knowing about network management systems built into Intel and AMD based machines for years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology
Hardware-based management does not depend on the presence of an OS or locally installed management agent. Hardware-based management has been available on Intel/AMD based computers in the past, but it has largely been limited to auto-configuration using DHCP or BOOTP for dynamic IP address allocation and diskless workstations, as well as wake-on-LAN (WOL) for remotely powering on systems.[6] AMT is not intended to be used by itself; it is intended to be used with a software management application.[1] It gives a management application (and thus, the system administrator who uses it) access to the PC down the wire, in order to remotely do tasks that are difficult or sometimes impossible when working on a PC that does not have remote functionalities built into it.[1][3][7]
...
Intel has confirmed a Remote Elevation of Privilege bug (CVE-2017-5689) in its Management Technology, on 1 May 2017.[12] Every Intel platform with either Intel Standard Manageability, Active Management Technology, or Small Business Technology, from Nehalem in 2008 to Kaby Lake in 2017 has a remotely exploitable security hole in the IME (Intel Management Engine).[13][14]
I think our second O in OODA is getting fuzzed if we don't consider some of the observations found in "Powershift" by Toffler as well.

The point being is that many Intel and AMD based computers can and have been owned by various governments and groups for years, and at this level have access to any information on these machines before the encryption software is launched to encrypt any communications.

If this known software management tool is already on board, then extrapolation Toffler's chipping warning to unannounced or unauthorized by various actors, one begins to see where various nation states have gone back to typewriters for highly sensitive information, or are building their own chip foundries, and writing their own operating systems and TCP/IP protocols, and since these things are known knowns, one would not be too far fetched in assuming the nation state level players are communicating over something entirely different than you and I are using. How that impacts the current news cycle, and your interpretation of those events, I leave to your good judgment.

I would urge all of my fellow Americans, especially those with a megaphone, to also take care that we are not the subject of the idiom divide and conquer instead of its' master. To that end I think the concept of information overload induced by the internet may in fact be part of the increasing polarization and information bubbles we see forming with liberals and conservatives. This too fuzzes the second O in OODA and warps the D and thus the A, IMHO.

Ingolf Eide , 01 June 2017 at 12:23 AM

This serial leaking is the most visible sign of a deeper battle between the foreign policy "establishment" and Trump. While much discussed here, the causes and potential consequences of this crucially important showdown are rarely touched on in the mainstream media; they're far too caught up in the hue and cry of the chase.

"Security Breach - Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J Glennon's article in the latest Harper's, is an exception:

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/06/security-breach/?single=1

"Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best hope. Following the Washington Post's disclosure on December 9 that the CIA believed Russia had intervened in the election to help Trump, the agency overnight became the great darling of many Trump critics. They urged it to share its secrets with the Electoral College with the goal of preventing the president-elect from taking office. Trump was "being really dumb" by feuding with the CIA, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." Francis Fukuyama hoped that "America's enormous bureaucracy" would restrain Trump. Bill Kristol proclaimed he would "prefer the deep state to the Trump state." And The New Yorker assured readers that the intelligence community's managers were likely to challenge Trump before Congress, which was as it should be: "This is just the sort of thing we want to see happening" as part of "the fabled 'checks and balances' in the U.S. system."

This sudden embrace of the security agencies as the republic's last line of defence is of course constitutional nonsense as well as being remarkably shortsighted, potentially suicidally so. Glennon again:

"But consider the price of victory if the security directorate were somehow to establish itself as a check on those presidential policies - or officials - that it happened to dislike. To formally charge the bureaucracy with providing a check on the president, Congress, or the courts would represent an entirely new form of government, a system in which institutionalized bureaucratic autocracy displaces democratic accountability."

Glennon thinks Trump may surprise those who "blithely assume that the security bureaucracy will fight him to the death". As he says "it has never faced the raw hostility of an all out frontal assault from the White House." Indeed his greater concern is that should Trump go all in to quell this rebellion, "splintered and demoralised factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyber attacks, covert action, immigration bands, and mass surveillance." From where things stand right now, that seems like a good problem to have.

In any event, it's mildly encouraging to see some discussion of the broader principles. I still think Trump has much to gain from putting these matters firmly within this larger framework and hammering it hard at every level.

Thomas - , 01 June 2017 at 03:52 PM
"This sudden embrace of the security agencies as the republic's last line of defence is of course constitutional nonsense as well as being remarkably shortsighted, potentially suicidally so."

They are using this not for defence of the republic, but for sparing these usurping subversives from just punishment.

bernard , 01 June 2017 at 04:58 AM
Col Lang:

Let me see if I have got this straight. It sounds like an enigma variation. Some damned traitors in Washington have just told the Russians that their top secret communications have been cracked. Its a bit like the BBC telling the Germans that their enigma machine/ code has been cracked. As a result, the Russians/ Germans are now going all out to change their encryption codes/ procedures.

Is this what you are saying or am I overstating/ dramatizing the matter?

turcopolier , 01 June 2017 at 09:44 AM
Bernard

You have it right. I would add that today's electronic cipher gear is much more sophisticated than in the era of Enigma and therefore the loss is so much greater. pl

[Jun 04, 2017] National security parasites and Trump leaks

Notable quotes:
"... There is a special term for those folk who are mainly involved in justified their own existence: "national security parasites". Their existence does increase chances of accidental war with Russia or China because they want to defend not the USA, but their lucrative positions and streams of income. That requires certain level of hostilities to be maintained. In other words the USA needs a permanent enemy to justify military expenses and there is a network network of consultants, think-tanks and neocon operatives (including democratic) tasked with this goal. An integral part of MIC -- its propaganda arm, is you wish. ..."
Jun 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova , June 04, 2017 at 12:41 PM

"a huge military establishment, the Pentagon needs to regularly justify its existence."

There is a special term for those folk who are mainly involved in justified their own existence: "national security parasites". Their existence does increase chances of accidental war with Russia or China because they want to defend not the USA, but their lucrative positions and streams of income. That requires certain level of hostilities to be maintained. In other words the USA needs a permanent enemy to justify military expenses and there is a network network of consultants, think-tanks and neocon operatives (including democratic) tasked with this goal. An integral part of MIC -- its propaganda arm, is you wish.

Some ways of justification, especially recently used by democratic operatives to attack Trump, look suspiciously close to treason to some observers.

OK, let's assume that Russians are the US enemies. If so, then the recent leaks about Russian diplomatic communications interception sound like betrayal of Bretchley Park efforts to decode enigma during WWII.

In other words, some damned traitors in Washington have just told the enemy that their top secret communications have been cracked. Its a bit like the BBC broadcasting during WWII that German enigma machine/ code has been cracked.

If true, huge advantage, considerable amount of money and efforts of NSA (as well taxpayers money) just disappeared in thin air.

And today's electronic cipher gear is much more sophisticated than in the era of Enigma, and, therefore, the loss is so much greater.

See Colonel Lang discussion at

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/05/httpwwwcnncom20170530politicsrussians-trump-campaign-information.html

ilsm - , June 04, 2017 at 08:15 AM
"seasoned military commanders" are like the Nazis who said US lost Vietnam because they were not patient. These "seasoned military commanders" seek only not to lose!

While why should anyone "follow US leadership with these type of "seasoned military commanders"?

Iran and Pakistan without US meddling will stabilize the place enough to link to OBOR.

The US is trying to prove you can kill enough of them to solve their problems, for them!

RGC - , June 04, 2017 at 10:13 AM
Neocons: The 'Anti-Realists'
January 17, 2015

America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media, endanger the planet by concoctingstrategies inside their heads that ignorereal-world consequences.

Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe.

By Robert Parry

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/17/neocons-the-anti-realists/

[Jun 03, 2017] State Department was at the center of neo-McCartyism compaign against Russia by Michael Isikoff

State department official were backstabbing Trump with impunity... Neocon cohorts recruited by Hillary such as staffers of Victoria Nuland still feel in charge... Essentially State Department was and is a neocon swamp that needs to be drained.
The level of McCarthyism hysteria in comments is really frightening...
Notable quotes:
"... These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said. ..."
"... Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said one source, who asked not to be identified. ..."
"... These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking them in place - before Trump could lift them ..."
"... The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.") ..."
"... But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position on the issue. ..."
"... In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year. ..."
"... "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said. ..."
Jun 01, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

Originally from: Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

How the Trump administration's secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short

In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.

Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.

These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.

"There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several "panicky" calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"

Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies - including Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - to urge them to move quickly to pass legislation that would "codify" the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President Trump to remove them.

Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama's assistant secretary of state for human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions - and possibly arrange a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin - as part of an effort to achievea "grand bargain" with Moscow. "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Malinowski, who only days before he left office announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.

The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration's policy moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early days of the new administration.

It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals that began circulating right after the inauguration.

A senior White House official confirmed that the administration began exploring changes in Russia sanctions as part of a broader policy review that is still ongoing. "We've been reviewing all the sanctions - and this is not exclusive to Russia," the official said. "All the sanctions regimes have mechanisms built in to alleviate them. It's been our hope that the Russians would take advantage of that" by living up to Moscow's agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, but they did not do so.

To be sure, President Trump's interest in improving relations with Moscow was hardly a secret during last year's presidential campaign." If we can make a great deal for our country and get along with Russia, that would be a tremendous thing," Trump said in a April 28, 2016, Fox News interview ."I would love to try it."

But there was nothing said in public about specific steps the new administration took toward reaching the kind of deal the president had talked about during the campaign - without requiring the Russians to acknowledge responsibility for the annexation of Crimea or Moscow's "influence campaign" during the 2016 election.

Just days after President Trump took office, officials who had moved into the secretary of state's seventh-floor office sent a "tasking" order to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs to develop a menu of options to improve relations with Russia as part of a deal in exchange for Russian cooperation in the war against the Islamic State in Syria, according to two former officials. Those options were to include sanctions relief as well as other steps that were a high priority for Moscow, including the return of two diplomatic compounds - one on Long Island and the other on Maryland's Eastern Shore - that were shut by President Obama on Dec. 29on the grounds that they were being used for espionage purposes. (The return of the compounds is again being actively considered by the administration, according to a Washington Post reportThursday. ) "Obviously, the Russians have been agitating about this," the senior White House official said when asked about the compounds, or "dachas," as the Russians call them. But it would be inaccurate to report there has been an agreement to return them without some reciprocal move on Moscow's part.

Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said one source, who asked not to be identified.

These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking them in place - before Trump could lift them

The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.")

The proposed bill lost some of its urgency six days later when Flynn resigned as White House national security adviser following disclosures he had discussed political sanctions relief with Kislyak during the transition and misrepresented those talks to Vice President Mike Pence. After that, "it didn't take too long for it to become clear that if they lifted sanctions, there would be a political firestorm," Malinowski said.

But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position on the issue.

In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year.

"I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said.

[Jun 03, 2017] Either they dont understand the damage theyre doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt

Jun 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova, June 03, 2017 at 01:05 PM

Another interesting quote from Putin speech:

"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans,"

"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

Putin I Can Prove Trump Did Not Pass Secrets to Russia

[Jun 02, 2017] The strange death of Anglo-American liberalism

Notable quotes:
"... In short, we're less than six months into the new presidency. There's a great deal of evidence suggesting it's business as usual despite all the pre and post-election bombast and hysteria ( bombings still popular eg), a soaring stock market, and little evidence of imminent economic collapse. ..."
"... I very much doubt that America will abandon the special relationship with Britain and Europe as long as the majority of the US population can trace their ancestry back across the Atlantic. I also think this special relationship post 1945 was a consequence of a particular set of realities, realities that have changed, and was always less robust than politicians claimed. ..."
"... it seems to me that Germany's ability to export into Britain and the US are far more critical to US-German relations than any of the gases rising out of the swamp. ..."
"... The US has evidently elected to end any efforts to destabilize pro-Russia governments in eastern Europe, which seems to me wise. ..."
"... My sense is that a considerable number of Americans would be extremely reluctant to commit US lives to protecting NATO members that currently do not meet their commitments in troops and cash. ..."
"... The core request from France and southern countries is not that Germans spend more. It's that they themselves (or at least their governments) can spend more, with the resulting debt directly or indirectly backed by the Euro-system as a whole. ..."
"... And despite German resistance, France and southern Europe are still running significant deficits, with a growing debt, while the ECB buys more of their bonds than the Germans would prefer. Ironically, both the German government and the others like to pretend that Germany has more dominance than it has. The Germans get to look in charge, the other get a scapegoat. ..."
"... Macron, on the other hand, explicitly and openly campaigned on a platform of reduction of public spending, reduction of budget deficit, lowering production costs, increasing productivity and betting that the relative internal devaluation compared to Germany will rebuild its productive capacity. ..."
Jun 02, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

by Henry on May 31, 2017 I've been thinking about this Gideon Rachman piece over the last 24 hours:

despite her cautious phrasing, Ms Merkel has also behaved irresponsibly - making a statement that threatens to widen a dangerous rift in the Atlantic alliance into a permanent breach. it is a mistake to allow four months of the Trump presidency to throw into doubt a Transatlantic alliance that has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years Ms Merkel was unwise and unfair to bracket the UK with Trump's America. In the climate change discussions, Britain sided with the EU - not the US. if Ms Merkel's government pursues the Brexit negotiations in the current confrontational spirit - demanding that the UK commit to vast upfront payments, before even discussing a trade deal - she risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and a lasting antagonism between Britain and the EU. It is hard to see how the UK can be expected to see the same countries as adversaries in the Brexit negotiations and allies in the Nato context. So a really hard Brexit could indeed raise questions about Britain's commitment to Nato - particularly if the US is also pulling back from the western alliance.

Not so much the broader argument (which I disagree with , but in obvious ways) than what the specifics say about the current state of Financial Times [neo]liberalism.

For a very long time, the Financial Times had a pretty clear position in debate. It was the organ that made Britain's case in Europe, and Europe's case in Britain. That went along with a certain style of argument. Committed to free markets, but with a undertone that they had to have decent outcomes. Pro concerted action to solve international problems such as global warming. Very much in favor of Europe's role in helping to cement democracy in Eastern Europe and always ready to deplore backsliding and corruption. Broadly in favor of small-l [neo]liberalism with respect to the more dubious authoritarian tendencies of both British and continental states. Economic inequality was always a dicey set of issues for a newspaper whose financial model depended in part on the "How to Spend It" supplement. Perhaps that helps explain the Chris Giles on Piketty farrago . But still, on most issues, there was a reasonably well-defined possibility space of vaguely-left liberal to vaguely-right liberal positions, triangulating between European and UK perspectives, from which FT writers (and readers) could draw.

... ... ...

engels 05.31.17 at 8:43 pm ( 4 )
Committed to free markets, but with a undertone that they had to have decent outcomes.

That's a bit like being committed to golden mountains or round squares.

kidneystones 05.31.17 at 9:39 pm ( 6 )
Hi Henry, thanks for this. A couple of thoughts.

First, I've little argument with your general remarks regarding the move away from a [neo]liberalism of the past and the likely trajectory of the FT. I'm surprised, however, by your (apparent?) willingness to plant your flag in what looks to me to be thin air. Namely, 'reports' of discord and 'crazed' arguments from the right.

I'm not sure the right and the left ever had entirely coherent arguments and I'll certainly conceded it's easier to see the crazy in Trump's flip-flop tweets, for example. I'd strongly caution reading too much into reports in the FT about words, however.

The recent Kennedy school study of coverage of the administration confirms a highly atypical manner of reporting that is often at odds with realities. I'm certainly not defending any partisan, or position (at least, here), but rather stressing that there's rarely been a worse time to parse reality from press reports for reasons that are too obvious to detail again.

A number of IR observers (including those hostile to the new president) praised the Saudi trip and the administrations relations with both Japan and China. Hostile commentary of both Trump and Merkel re: Germany, including the FT report, make clear that there are merits in Trump's critique of NATO member contributions, for example.

In short, we're less than six months into the new presidency. There's a great deal of evidence suggesting it's business as usual despite all the pre and post-election bombast and hysteria ( bombings still popular eg), a soaring stock market, and little evidence of imminent economic collapse.

I very much doubt that America will abandon the special relationship with Britain and Europe as long as the majority of the US population can trace their ancestry back across the Atlantic. I also think this special relationship post 1945 was a consequence of a particular set of realities, realities that have changed, and was always less robust than politicians claimed.

You know far more about markets and international trade than I, but it seems to me that Germany's ability to export into Britain and the US are far more critical to US-German relations than any of the gases rising out of the swamp.

The US has evidently elected to end any efforts to destabilize pro-Russia governments in eastern Europe, which seems to me wise. There's a great deal of posturing by those who have constituencies that love posturing, but beyond that very little has changed, despite the concerted effort by concerned parties (not you) to make recent events 'truly exceptional' and 'unprecedented.'

Z 06.01.17 at 11:23 am ( 12 )
A very interesting post. Two observations, of differing nature.

1) I think part of the current confusion is that the term liberalism, especially of the Anglo-American variety, has come to describe two overlapping but significantly distinct phenomena.

  • On the one hand, it refers to a philosophical attitude based on a set of philosophical values. In that sense, it ultimately relies on a specific philosophical anthropology which has been dominant or even significant almost only in English-speaking Protestant countries and is thus anthropological at its core.
  • On the other hand, it refers to a system of political economy[neoliberalism]. In that sense, it ultimately relies on a specific social group and is thus sociological at its core.

I think that what Henry is observing can be recast in the following terms: the countries in which liberalism have been the strongest in the first sense and in the second sense have been broadly the same during the 1800-1990 period, but that is increasingly not true anymore.

2) The paragraph starting with "This has interesting, but complicated implications for the continent" in the OP is fascinating. At the risk of being blunt, I personally believe that the current emerging political and ideological system on the European continent triggered by Brexit and Trump and led by Merkel is not correctly described as "European integration" in the sense given to this term in the 1970s or 1980s: Germany is far too powerful relative to other actors; it has by now become an almost pure system of domination.

This system of domination is not based on liberal values in the first sense above; rather the converse in fact. Arguably, it is not even based on liberal principles in the second sense: it would make good economic sense for Germans, French and the rest of European people if Germany agreed to raise very significantly its wages and to consume more yet, as Henry mentions in the linked piece at the Monkey Cage, there are considerably resistance coming from Germany as long as France (or Spain, or Italy, or of course Greece) has not learned "discipline" or "responsibility".

In particular, even though Macron and his electorate embody liberalism in the second sense almost as perfectly as was ever achieved in an advanced democracy (and despite his apparent sincere personal adherence to some form of philosophical liberalism in the first sense), he and his government might very well end up being drawn in an endless spiral of increasing austerity and higher unemployment in the (vain?) hope to become more than the national relay of German power in France (a very balanced but thorough analysis can be read here https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/180517/le-soutien-de-lallemagne-indispensable-au-projet-macron?onglet=full ).

kidneystones 06.01.17 at 1:59 pm ( 14 )
@10 Thank you for this. I fear you misunderstand me. My own view is that the 'special relationship' that is so much in danger is and has been a fiction.

The US did not ride to the rescue in 1914, or 1939. From 1945 until 1992 (or so) the US engaged in a world wide war against communism. NATO never had a conventional armed force to match that of the eastern bloc and the Soviet Union. A convincing case can be made that Turkey is/was far more important to the US military alliance than any nation in Europe.

My sense is that a considerable number of Americans would be extremely reluctant to commit US lives to protecting NATO members that currently do not meet their commitments in troops and cash. Both WWI and WWII offer scant evidence that Americans are likely to feel any urgent need to rush Europe's defense unless the case can be made that American interests are actually threatened. I say that as a supporter of NATO who is not American.

I can say that last time so many Americans were convinced they were living in extraordinary times you ended up invading Iraq. The pages of the NYT have been filled with the kind of conspiracy tales that one can find easily in the comments section of Free Republic and Breitbart. The media and politicians rush to fit the enemy with a crime. The fact that Feinstein and others stress they have seen no evidence of any crime means nothing. Like Bush and Cheney, these folks aren't interested in facts, the political WMD must there somewhere, so 'we' have no alternative but to invade/invalidate the election.

What you and your LARGE CAP pals fail to grasp is that the mountain of evidence growing larger every day accurately reflects the scale of the current president's success. The establishment of both political parties and the media, the defeated candidate and the former president still expend unprecedented levels of energy, cash, and political capitol trying to slow down a geriatric political neophyte who has somehow tied the oh so much smarter elites in knots.

The net result of which is to confirm for the historical record that no other president has faced and overcome opposition from the establishment on this scale. He could yet implode, but as someone once noted 'hope is not a plan.'

Worth reading – especially the part about the Dem message getting lost in the white noise.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

James 06.01.17 at 2:52 pm ( 15 )
Its interesting that the reader comments under FT articles have never been very supportive of Theresa May, and in the last two weeks have turned viciously against her. The number of pro-Corbyn comments is surprising.
Zamfir 06.01.17 at 2:56 pm ( 16 )
Z writes:
- Arguably, it is not even based on liberal principles in the second sense: it would make good economic sense for Germans, French and the rest of European people if Germany agreed to raise very significantly its wages and to consume more yet, as Henry mentions in the linked piece at the Monkey Cage, there are considerably resistance coming from Germany as long as France (or Spain, or Italy, or of course Greece) has not learned "discipline" or "responsibility" -

The core request from France and southern countries is not that Germans spend more. It's that they themselves (or at least their governments) can spend more, with the resulting debt directly or indirectly backed by the Euro-system as a whole. It's not that obvious to me that this makes good economic sense for everyone, win-win-win. If that deficit spending works as intended, it's good for the spending countries and neutral for Germany. If it doesn't work, it's bad for Germany but neutral for the spending countries (who at least got the spending, even if it doesn't kick-start the wider economy).

And despite German resistance, France and southern Europe are still running significant deficits, with a growing debt, while the ECB buys more of their bonds than the Germans would prefer. Ironically, both the German government and the others like to pretend that Germany has more dominance than it has. The Germans get to look in charge, the other get a scapegoat.

Z 06.01.17 at 5:06 pm ( 17 )
The core request from France and southern countries is not that Germans spend more. It's that they themselves (or at least their governments) can spend more, with the resulting debt directly or indirectly backed by the Euro-system as a whole.

No, no, really no, not in the case of Macron, what you describe would have been the official Hollande position before he abandoned it in late 2012/early 2013 or the platform of Benoît Hamon (the unsuccessful presidential candidate from the Party Socialiste).

Macron, on the other hand, explicitly and openly campaigned on a platform of reduction of public spending, reduction of budget deficit, lowering production costs, increasing productivity and betting that the relative internal devaluation compared to Germany will rebuild its productive capacity. What it asks in Germany in exchange is that it diminishes its trade surplus, raises its wages and have a sustained growth of its internal demand, so that the productivity differential between the two economies (which would normally be corrected by an appreciation of the German currency) be reduced. Echoes from Germany say that German leaders (though not necessarily Merkel) want Macron to prove that he is serious about his side of the plan before they do their part and echoes from the Élysée say that he agreed, which is risky as only quite intense austerity policies can reduce said productivity differential unilaterally and such policies in contemporary France, with its already very low demand, high unemployment and dynamic demography, may lead to an explosive socio-economic situation.

[Jun 02, 2017] The Dishonorable White House Leaks

Jun 02, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Conservative writer Erick Erickson said he knows one of the White House sources who has leaked information critical of President Trump. Erickson said on FOX News on May 16 that "more and more White House sources are leaking to the press so that the president does get the memo people in the White House are trying to get the president's attention." Erickson said this is "not intentional sabotage." He said the person he knows who is leaking is a Trump supporter who is frustrated with President Trump.

Since Erickson said this the leaks from anonymous sources in the White House have, if anything, increased. Now White House communications director Mike Dubke has resigned and it doesn't seem a big leap to assume the issues are related-we shouldn't have to wait long for leaks from the White House to tell us.

At the root of all of this is me-generation, inside-the-beltway-style thinking, as leaks designed to "get the president's attention" don't just publicly showcase a lack of loyalty from White House staff, but they actually expose a complete lack of honor in those doing the leaking. It's hard not to wonder if these leakers even understand what real honor is.

When those on the inside of an embattled administration empower themselves by trying to check their boss (in this case the president of the United States) not from within their chain of command, as they rightly can, but by anonymously leaking information to the media, then what we have is mutinous conduct. That is only honorable in one extreme circumstance.

Before getting to that, it should be said anyone who has spent a good deal of time inside the Beltway has likely been exposed to an unhealthy dose of Machiavellianism. Anyone who has spent a career in Washington, D.C.'s political circus might have a hard time clearly comprehending, much less believing in, real honor. I've even had some who live and work inside the Beltway tell me honor is a quality they can't afford, as others won't play by gentlemanly rules.

Journalists with that point of view can only do so much damage, but officials with that view can sink a presidency.

Now sure, a good argument could even be made that journalists should be circling sharks who feel most emboldened when there is some blood in the water. And that might be a sound basis for an argument if the Washington media went after Democrats with the same zeal it does Republican administrations.

But whatever we think of journalists, any reasonable person will likely agree that when someone takes a staff position in an administration they are agreeing to support the administration. To accomplish this, instead of trashing their boss and hierarchy in the media, those within an administration would be wiser to come to an understanding of what real honor is, or, if they are not happy with what they signed on for, to leave the administration in protest.

So okay, what is honorable? Dictionary.com begins defining "honor" as "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions." That's a fine start, but honor is much more than those lofty words. For a more practical understanding of honor, it is helps to look at the actions of those who've misunderstood it.

Edward Snowden is a good example of a person who showed he didn't understand honor. Hopefully being stuck in Russia's cold embrace has taught him what he clearly didn't know-though, based on his Tweets, it hasn't.

Some on the right and the left consider what Snowden did to be honorable, even heroic, because they like that he checked Big Brother. I like that, too. (I even have a soon-to-be-released novel coming out called Kill Big Brother that shows how to get it done right.) But the thing is Snowden wasn't courageous enough to do the real honorable thing. If he took his information on government invasions of privacy to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who helped write the Whistleblower Protection Act and is a strong advocate for whistleblowers, or another member of Congress and let the system fight it out on the inside before, as a last resort, possibly leaking some small portion of the data to the media, then he could be called honorable from a certain and very American point of view.

But that's not what he did. According to a bipartisan report by the House Intelligence Committee, Snowden calculatingly tried to trick coworkers, sometimes successfully, into giving him their security credentials so he could access their network drives. He then copied all of the information and, finally, leaked it. According to the report the "vast majority of the documents he stole [had] nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests-they instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to America's adversaries." Snowden soon fled to China and then to Russia-two nations that hardly stand up for the values he was supposed to be fighting for. And he gave those nations this secret U.S. government data.

There is little that is honorable in Snowden's actions. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning), who delivered nearly three-quarters of a million classified or sensitive military and diplomatic documents to Wikileaks, also acted dishonorably. He/she should have acted as a whistleblower, not a leaker.

Meanwhile, those now in the White House who reportedly decided to check President Trump by leaking information to the media have acted just as dishonorably.

If honor requires them to act, then it also requires them to act in an honorable way. It takes real guts to do that, especially when you realize how the U.S. government's bureaucracy treats whistleblowers-and then realize that even a congressman can't do much to help a whistleblower even as the whistleblower's career is destroyed, often by politically appointed bureaucrats who consider whistleblowers to be traitors.

The honorable, and American, way to check the system is to use its built-in checks and balances, not to hide behind anonymity while muckraking in the media. Going outside the system might be honorable if the checks and balances do not work; checking the entire system like that, however, must be a last resort in a freely elected democracy. (This is arguably what Deep Throat did.)

Those in the current administration who are uncertain about what is honorable should pick up a copy of Herman Wouk's 1951 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Caine Mutiny . Or, if they don't have the time, watch the 1954 film version starring Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson and Fred MacMurray.

In the film version Captain Philip Francis Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) shows clear signs of paranoia as he tries to enforce discipline on the Caine 's crew. Communications officer Thomas Keefer (Fred MacMurray) soon tries to convince executive officer Stephen Maryk (Van Johnson) to consider relieving Captain Queeg on the basis of mental incapacity under Article 184 of Navy Regulations. Maryk refuses, but finally has to do so when the ship is imperiled by a storm and Captain Queeg falls apart under the pressure. The film then turns to a court-martial hearing for Maryk and others for mutiny. They win the case when Captain Queeg falls apart on the witness stand. This leaves them feeling justified, but then, later, their Navy defense attorney (Jose Ferrer), now drunk, confronts them and tells them they were wrong. He tells them they should have helped Captain Queeg along the way instead of mutinously pulling away from him until he collapsed under pressure. The honorable thing to do was to first try to help.

Honor can be a hard, subtle thing like that, especially when the boss doesn't always showcase all the traits of a man of honor.

Frank Miniter is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide: Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood . He is also the author of This Will Make a Man of You and The Future of the Gun .

[May 31, 2017] Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin by Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous and Greg Miller

Another well-placed, well-timed leak from WaPo. Un-named intelligence official in play again. Is Russian embassy bugged and all diplomatic correspondence intercepted ? Looks like those guys outdid STASI. the standard question arises: "cuo bono".
If true, that means that the way information was obtained is iether already known by Russian, or this channel will be closed really soon. Form the text of the article it looks like the USA is able to read Russian diplomatic communication. Unless this is yet another disinformation, that means that the USA obtained the keys used by the embassy for incoding dypolicic communication, or have a modle who provided this communication by downloading already decoded archive or something like that. Which actually violates Vienna convention and makes the USA rogue nation not that different from GDR ot the USSR.
While it is unclear " what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow" it is clear who benefit from this revelation. But even if true why to reveal such an important information for such a minor case. Trump folded. What else "deep state" wants from him ? Are Hillary friends in State Department and a couple of other intelligence agencies really crazy about the revenge ?
More questions then answers
Notable quotes:
"... But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations with Trump. ..."
"... The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors the communications of Russian officials overseas. ..."
"... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another manufactured news media story. ..."
"... The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints! ..."
"... Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington Trash prints! ..."
May 26, 2017 | www.msn.com

Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, then President-elect Trump's son-in-law and confidant, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser.

The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.

Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate - a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.

Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials said.

The White House declined to comment. Robert Kelner, a lawyer for Flynn, declined to comment. The Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations with Trump.

Kushner's apparent interest in establishing a secret channel with Moscow, rather than rely on U.S. government systems, has added to the intrigue surrounding the Trump administration's relationship with Russia.

To some officials, it also reflects a staggering naivete.

The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors the communications of Russian officials overseas.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that though Russian diplomats have secure means of communicating with Moscow, Kushner's apparent request for access to such channels was extraordinary.

"How would he trust that the Russians wouldn't leak it on their side?" said one former senior intelligence official. The FBI would know that a Trump transition official was going in and out of the embassy, which would cause "a great deal" of concern, he added. The entire idea, he said, "seems extremely naďve or absolutely crazy."

The discussion of a secret channel adds to a broader pattern of efforts by Trump's closest advisors to obscure their contacts with Russian counterparts. Trump's first national security adviser, Flynn, was forced to resign after a series of false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters related to the Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had failed to disclose his own meetings with Kislyak when asked during congressional testimony about any contact with Russians.

Kushner's interactions with Russians - including Kislyak and an executive for a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions - were not acknowledged by the White House until they were exposed in media reports.

It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence

... ... ....

In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a "Russian contact" in a third country whose name was not identified, according to the anonymous letter.

The Post reported in April that Erik Prince, the former founder of Blackwater private security firm and an informal adviser to the Trump transition team, met on Jan. 11 - nine days before Trump's inauguration - in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean with a representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Tom Lewis · Longs, South Carolina

"Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring" .... pretty stiff accusation with this as the news media's source ... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another manufactured news media story.

Paul Schofield · San Diego, California

Everyone knew about this, and it happens with every transition team, and it was done AFTER Trump won the election, but if it gets the Liberals' panties in a bunch, and CNN more viewers, the angry Clintonites can scream impeachment for a few hours tonight..... suckers!

Jerry Reich · Arnold, Missouri

The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints!

Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington Trash prints!

[May 31, 2017] So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? by Vanessa Beeley

May 31, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
Originally from: Gaslighting State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism This article was first published by 21st Century Wire

Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.

May 29, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism. The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of the US since its birth as a free nation.

Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans. Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.

In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.

Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.

Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.

"The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~ Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.

So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny & neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?

What is Gaslighting?

Gaslight

The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight. Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic, reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture or interrogation.

Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate. This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.

Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim. It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.

" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~ Alex Myles

Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One

The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser, a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality which is in fact that of the abuser.

Stage Two

The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.

This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to gain and maintain control.

Stage Three

The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant. This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.

Exceptionalism or Narcissism?

Gaslight

We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .

The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity, fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.

Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming, the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality & civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.

Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a "legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".

The NGO Complex Deployment

Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.

In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.

The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.

In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US is inflicting upon the people of this world.

Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes being committed in "their name".

This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.

" My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is anything?"

She deserves an answer

***

Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog The Wall Will Fall .

[May 30, 2017] Believing the Russian Hacking Claim by David Swanson

Notable quotes:
"... Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed ..."
"... All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case. ..."
"... There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . . ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Business Standard ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence. ..."
"... Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .) ..."
"... Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact. ..."
"... Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi. ..."
May 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed

When the US public was told that Spain had blown up the Maine, or Vietnam had returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward and disprovable.

Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.

All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case.

There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . .

  • "Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" ( Yahoo ).
  • "Russian attempts to disrupt the election" ( New York Times ).
  • "Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" ( ABC ).
  • "Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" ( The Intercept ).
  • "a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" ( Time ).
  • "Russian interference in the US election" ( CNN ).
  • "Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election" ( American Constitution Society ).
  • "Russian hacking in US Election" ( Business Standard )."

"Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?

The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event in Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted as brushed aside.

Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.

Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .)

Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.

Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.

A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim. This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org . He is the author of War Is A Lie . Reprinted from his website .

Read more by David Swanson Iraq Has WMDs and Russia Has Invaded – September 3rd, 2014

[May 30, 2017] Swamp Politics, Trump Style Russiagate Diverts From the Real White House Scandals by Anthony DiMaggio

Notable quotes:
"... As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton stories covered by Wikileaks ..."
"... Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup ..."
"... Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's for sale" approach to "governing." ..."
"... While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration – even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today ..."
May 26, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

The investigation of the Trump administration continues with the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to the inquiry into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 election. I've refrained from writing about "Russiagate" to this point, because of how poorly the investigation has been handled by political leaders and the media.

Scarcely do I see a recognition from these political actors that the report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which supposedly provided evidence of Russian election meddling, provided no definitive documentation of a direct link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The report concluded that Vladimir Putin personally ordered email hacks of the Democratic Party to uncover potentially embarrassing information on Hillary Clinton, and to boost Trump's chances of winning the election. But the report failed to flesh out specific details documenting alleged Russian efforts to influence the election.

The public was expected to take the charges on faith. This is not to say that Russia is innocent of trying to sway the election. I have no hard evidence one way or the other on that question, but as someone who believes in evidence-based reasoning, I don't accept claims that are made without documentation.

As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton stories covered by Wikileaks had a substantive impact on voter choice. Most of these stories were inside-baseball kind of stuff, including the "revelation" that John Podesta thought Hillary Clinton has poor political instincts, that the Clinton campaign didn't like Bernie Sanders (a shocker!), that Clinton supported "open borders" free trade agreements (you don't say?), and that she delivered a Wall Street speech voicing support for adopting "public" and "private position[s]" on political issues (politicians lie?!?). In an era of superficiality in American elections, it's also fair to ask how much attention citizens pay to these kinds of stories. Election scholars have long found that much of the public votes for candidates based on extremely superficial considerations such as physical attractiveness, use of buzz words, and an amorphous belief in a candidates' "character."

What little empirical evidence that's been presented so far raises doubts about the impact of alleged Russian spying on the election. As Harry Egan of 538 writes, despite considerable public interest in Wikileaks and the election, "Clinton's drop in the polls [in late October and early November] doesn't line up perfectly with the surge in Wikileaks interest" among the public, as seen in national google searches. "When Wikileaks had its highest search day in early October, Clinton's poll numbers were rising. They continued to go up for another two weeks, even as Wikileaks was releasing emails. That is, there isn't one pivotal 'aha!' point which shows that Wikileaks caused Clinton's numbers to drop There just isn't a clean-cut story in the data."

The evidence that does exist suggesting that individual news stories influenced the polls cuts against the Russia-election meddling thesis. In the fall of 2016, Nate Silver summarized various election-related events and their potential impact as follows: "when a story has broken through to dominate the news cycle, it usually has moved the polls in the direction that people expected. Trump's feuds with Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the family of the American soldier Humayun Khan corresponded with periods when he declined in the polls. The first debate turned into a disaster for Trump in a way that was predictable based on instant-reaction polls. Trump's convention was a mess, whereas Clinton's was conventionally effective, and she got a much larger convention bounce. However, Clinton was hurt by her email scandal resurfacing as a major story line in July. And she declined in the polls after her 'basket of deplorables' comments and Sept. 11 health scare." Notice that none of the events cited by Silver were tied back directly to "Russiagate." It seems much more likely that the re-announcement of the FBI's Clinton email investigation in late-October was a key factor in swinging what was already a close race.

Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup 's polling numbers for May 2017 find that just 40 percent of Americans hold a "favorable" view of the Democratic Party, compared to 39 percent sharing a favorable view of Republicans. And the Democrats' favorability numbers are in decline, falling from 45 percent in November 2016. The effort to define Democratic politics through opposition to Trump has backfired. The party has failed over the last half-year to cultivate any meaningful support from the public. The Democrats have no real identity anymore outside of resisting Trump, and this kind of "identity" is not something one can build public support around in terms of consistently winning elections. Hillary Clinton's election loss exposed the Democrats as a party that's lost touch with the public and is tone deaf to the economic troubles afflicting Americans.

Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's for sale" approach to "governing." Taking an open and honest look at the wheeling and dealing of the Trump administration, it would be foolish to deny that something fishy is going on in Washington. Bizarrely, and in a sign of his incompetence, Trump has gone out of his way to suggest that he has something to hide regarding the Russia investigation. What it is that he may be hiding I can't say for sure without further evidence, but his behavior up to this point screams scandal. Perhaps, like former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, he is hiding prominent business investments with Russia. Trump has consistently and suspiciously refused to release his tax returns, fueling speculation that he's seeking to hide dubious financial connections with other countries. Trump's stubbornness extends beyond the "witch hunt" he now laments, as he refused to release these returns during the election season, prior to the emergence of "Russiagate."

Trump's erratic moves regarding the FBI also suggest something strange is afoot. When you fire the head of the FBI, and admit in an interview with Lester Holt that it was motivated by Comey's Russia investigation, that's a red flag. When news stories report that Trump demanded the end of the Flynn investigation, and when reports suggest Comey's firing was the result of his refusal to end said investigation, that's another red flag. If nothing else, it opens Trump up to charges of obstruction of justice. And when Trump has a sit down with Russian diplomats informing them that, now that Comey's gone, it frees the president up and relieves "great pressure" on him, that's a big red flag. If Trump is innocent of dubious business or political ties to foreign governments, why is he going out of his way to play the part of a guilty man?

While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration – even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today . Flynn blatantly lied about his financial ties with Russia to federal investigators. And Flynn's economic ties to Russia were no laughing matter. Such ties coexisted alongside Flynn's private sit-down with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, to discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Flynn has now opened himself up to federal charges, specifically to violating the Logan Act, which prohibits civilians outside the Executive branch from engaging in foreign policy making. Beyond this legal infraction, though, we see the broader problem of an administration that believes policy is just another commodity to be bought and sold like any good or service on the market. Those concerned with basic ethics in government should be displeased with the ham-fisted horse trading engaged in by Flynn, who accepted money from a foreign government while promising policy reforms that would benefit said government.

When government officials seek financial gain in exchange for policy quid-pro-quos, it raises serious ethical questions. That Trump still refuses to recognize how inappropriate Flynn's relationship was, and that he reportedly wants to bring Flynn back into the Executive fold once the investigation is over, demonstrates how oblivious he is to basic ethical considerations in government. Fynn's financial opportunism, of course, is by no means new to Washington. Other political officials regularly cash in on their business connections, as Obama recently did by giving a lucrative speech on Wall Street. But even Obama knew to give such speeches after he had served in office, rather than engaging in clumsy clientelism of the kind done by Flynn.

The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated contempt for transparency and dismissed the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the Executive and lobbyists. Trump also demands that non-partisan civil servants pledge "loyalty" to him, even in adversarial cases, like when former FBI director James Comey was investigating the Executive branch with regard to Russia. In doing so, Trump demonstrates a commitment to a "fiefdom" style of politics, in which he serves as a feudal lord over political subordinates. Within this fiefdom, Trump's signaled that Washington is open for business when it comes to horse trading financial benefits for policy outcomes. His openness to using the office for financial enrichment is apparent on multiple levels, as seen in the following instances:

  • Refusing to sell off his financial investments, or at the very least put them in a blind trust, prior to serving as president. Trump instead put his children in charge of managing his assets. There is no way to guarantee that he won't be passively or actively involved in influencing future investments as president, or that Trump won't make policy decisions in the White House with the goal of enriching his already existing assets at the expense of the public good.
  • Relying on campaign advisors and other officials who express various conflicts of interest regarding personal financial gain and influence peddling. One example is Paul Manafort, the former chairman of Trump's campaign, who profited as a consultant for a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party and working for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
  • Trump's recently announced $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi government, conveniently coupled with Saudi pledges to invest $20 billion in American "infrastructure" via the Blackstone Group, a corporation whose CEO Steve Schwarzman has close personal ties to Donald Trump, and another $100 million to Ivanka Trump's proposed "Women's Entrepreneurs Fund."

There should be nothing shocking about the above stories coming from a president who "authored" a book titled "The Art of the Deal," and who consistently bragged that, if elected, he would run the executive via a "deal making," business approach to policy making.

This administration demonstrates contempt for efforts to shine a light on its inappropriate "deal making." Most recently, Trump sought to block the Office of Government Ethics from securing the names of former lobbyists who secured waivers to work for the White House and other federal agencies. As the New York Times reported: "Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration. Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them."

... ... ...

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015). He can be reached at: [email protected]

[May 30, 2017] The Deep State is the State by Ron Jacobs

Notable quotes:
"... For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism. ..."
"... It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. ..."
"... When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent. ..."
"... At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House. ..."
"... There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. ..."
"... When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself. ..."
"... Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
May 26, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The deep state is not some enigmatic entity that operates outside the US government. It is the US state itself. Like all elements of that state, the so-called deep state exists to enforce the economic supremacy of US capitalism. It does so primarily via the secret domestic and international police forces like the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies. The operations of these agencies run the gamut from surveillance to propaganda to covert and overt military actions. Naturally, this so-called deep state operates according to their own rules; rules which ultimately insure its continued existence and relevance. Although it can be argued that it was the 1950 National Security Directive known as NSC-68 along with the Congressional Bill creating the Central Intelligence Agency that launched the "deep state" as we understand it, a broader understanding of the "deep state" places its genesis perhaps a century prior to that date. In other words, a structure designed to maintain the economic and political domination of certain powerful US capitalists existed well back into the nineteenth century. However, the centralization of that power began in earnest in the years following World War Two.

For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism.

It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. Not only did this mean the US military would grow in size, it also ensured that the power of the intelligence sector would expand both in terms of its reach and its budget. When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent.

As the 1950s turned into the 1960s, the so-called deep state's power continued to grow. Some of its better known manifestations include the failed attempt to invade revolutionary Cuba that became known as the Bay of Pigs, the use of psychoactive drugs on unsuspecting individuals as part of a mind control study, and numerous attempts to subvert governments considered anti-American. Among the latter actions one can include covert operations against the Vietnamese independence forces and the murder of the Congolese president Patrice Lumumba. In terms of the "deep state's" domestic operations, this period saw the intensification of spying on and disrupting various groups involved in the civil rights and antiwar organizing. Many elements of the domestic operation would become known as COINTELPRO and were directed by the FBI.

Although the agencies of the so-called deep state operate as part of the US state, this does not mean that those agencies are of one mind. Indeed, like any power structure, there are various factions represented. This means that there are disagreements over policies, priorities, direction, and personnel. The only certainty is that all of its members agree on the need to maintain the supremacy of US capital in the world. At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House.

There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016.

Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. Indeed, he would most likely greatly enhance those agencies' power, making a further mockery of the US Constitution. If Trump is able to get the agencies of the deep state to work for the factions he represents-either by replacing those loyal to others not named Trump or by cajoling and coercing them to change their loyalty-he will think the deep state is a great thing. In this way he is no different than every other US president. He understands that whoever controls the deep state controls the US. The struggle we are witnessing between the FBI and the Trump White House is part of a power struggle between US power elites.

When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself.

Join the debate on Facebook

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] .

[May 30, 2017] Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia

A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
Notable quotes:
"... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
"... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
"... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
"... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
"... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
"... dezinformatsiya ..."
"... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
"... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
"... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
"... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
"... actual conspiracy. ..."
"... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
"... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
"... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
May 30, 2017 | www.vox.com

President Donald Trump is about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal. Bernie Sanders and Sean Hannity are Russian agents. The Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a traitor for refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was a secret Russian agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.

These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed to confirm.

Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ).

There's also a handful of websites, like Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's 70,000 Facebook fans.

Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping into the mainstream discourse. In March, the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two months prior to that, Mensch had penned a lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit Hillary Clinton.

Last Thursday, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were Mensch and Palmer:

Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.

"There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."

Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.

The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's election.

"One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize - and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern being repeated."

Anatomy of a conspiracy theory

The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job" or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.

There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've written about them personally over and over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible and somewhat supported by the available evidence .

The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.

Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks ( before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January, she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.

Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship

"Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian government in hacking the election."

Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against "the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.

"Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was the 'Designated Survivor' at the inauguration of Donald Trump (yes, really) is likely to become President," Mensch writes.

She's also suggested that Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the news:

I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker , working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement officials.

And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:

Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter.

One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ).

"Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."

Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya (disinformation), or Chekist , a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's Russia.

This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies of being Chekists.

Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that are on the way.

These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.

These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account Counterchekist , and financial analyst Eric Garland (best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)

The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off .

Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.

This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.

These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of power

To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars: Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing from the Russiasphere.

"I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence in the White House," Reifler says.

The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.

"Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."

In one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.

The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question, just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical reasoning skills.

"[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't that many people who are willing to do that."

In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories. You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing something evil behind the scenes.

The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald J. Trump.

There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a "trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.

We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want someone to fill in the blanks for them.

"Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish claims."

This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.

Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.

But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to, is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.

For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":

A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:

Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a Palmer Report story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.

"Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."

And Keith Olbermann made a popular video for GQ based on Taylor's allegations about imminent arrests, adding that "Claude and his sources know their stuff."

What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy.

This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes a core and important part of what Democrats believe.

"Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."

That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic elites to correct it.

Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous, then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center of the political conversation.

"Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."

So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.

[May 30, 2017] Someone needs to remind Brennan that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennans arrival toKiev in 2014

Notable quotes:
"... getting to the crux of the matter when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking". The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated']) ..."
"... All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment.. ..."
"... And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else. ..."
www.unz.com

annamaria , May 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist.

Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/

"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.

Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.

"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."

This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

Rurik , Website May 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

@annamaria

the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014

I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

PG:

the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

getting to the crux of the matter when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking". The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

[May 30, 2017] The lunatics about fake news about Trump and Russia

May 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anonynmous | May 28, 2017 10:27:13 AM | 6

Must read article: The lunatics about fake news about Trump and Russia

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/democrats-are-falling-for-fake-news-about-russia.454971874/

Anonynmous | May 28, 2017 10:32:13 AM | 7
Here we go again, red scare hysteria wont stop:

MSM newest attack: Trump's Jared Kusher accused of talking with russian ambassador.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-girds-for-defense-of-top-aide-in-russia-row/

Ralphieboy | May 28, 2017 10:57:36 AM | 8
It is not so much the secret diplomacy but the background of business contacts and favors owed to Russian investors. IF there were only some way Trump could release some documents that might help dispel those lingering doubts...
james | May 28, 2017 12:27:49 PM | 9
where's nmb?
somebody | May 28, 2017 12:44:36 PM | 10
Posted by: Noirette | May 28, 2017 10:15:31 AM | 5
:-))

Actually you find a lot on it googling.

I guess lots of things went down the memory hole in 1945 in France (as in Germany).

The slogan obviously is designed to show activity without content.

james | May 28, 2017 1:07:09 PM | 11
good post at sst that hoarsewhisper was mentioning on the previous thread..

When Intelligence Isn't - By Patrick Armstrong

Heros | May 28, 2017 1:17:52 PM | 12
@Anonynmous 7
"Here we go again, red scare hysteria wont stop:"

I just finished the 1951 pamphlet by George Washington Armstrong titled Third Zionist War

There is loads of interesting material in it, but what made me bring it up now is the "red scare".

In 1951 things looked pretty bleak for the US:
- To a large degree the US had demilitarized.
- Mao had conquered China with the collusion of Marshall and the Communists in the Truman administration.
- Stalin was busy putting up the Iron Curtain around all of eastern Europe and Germany lay starving and devastated.
- The US navy was blockading Taiwan in the Taiwan straights so Mao could attack McCarthy in N. Korea with out fear of a nationalist invasion.
- McCarthy's desire to bomb the bridges and Chinese camps across the border were denied.
- Truman turned down the offer of 350,000 nationalist Chinese soldiers to help in N. Korea from Chang Kai Chek.
- The Zionists in the senate were blocking the stopping of the continuing looting of German industry by the Morgenthau plan.
- The Germans were furious with Eisenhower and the Nuremburg sham trials.
- Zionist spies within the Truman administration were leaking nuclear secrets and everything else to the soviets.

It is also important to note that Rothschild is derived from "red shield", so when you write "red scare" it is not clear if the scare is due to Zionism or just "useful idiot" Communism. In any case Armstrong points out who exactly had caused the Korean "Police Action" and the death of 50,000 US soldiers. It was the same group steering US politics whether you choose to describe them as Communists or Zionists. Just as with the Russian Revolution in 1917 that cause so many millions of deaths.

The "red scare" is a "red herring" and the deep states continued usage of it diminishes the degree of the threat that Zionism and its symbiotic cousin Communism poses to the entire planet.

frances | May 28, 2017 1:36:08 PM | 13
reply to: librul | May 28, 2017 8:01:29 AM | 2

Remember the future can be changed,have you ever read up on Edgar Casey? His vision of the future was not a WW3 but an environmental catastrophe if the world did not right itself. The disaster would be flooding on a grand scale,the Great Lakes flood into the Mississippi, the sea level's worldwide rise at least 60 feet, America is halved and much of it becomes islands. Europe is uninitiated as well. Not sure what would happen re the world's nuclear plants, they were before his time:)

Hoarsewhisperer | May 28, 2017 1:43:07 PM | 14
My favourite British Airways stuff-up rumour is that it was caused by corporate thriftiness - out-sourcing IT to India.
Airliners spend ~80%+ of their total service life airborne, so the down-time alone is costing shiploads of cash per minute. Reputation damage won't help either...
Jean | May 28, 2017 2:09:19 PM | 15
@5 Noirette

That's a good one. I say that France is living a second occupation since Sarko and Holland. And Macron being a pure creature of the Deep State or whatever else you might call it proves my point.

It will be intereting to see what will come out of Putin's visit to Paris though.

librul | May 28, 2017 2:21:02 PM | 16
@Curtis 4 and @frances 13,

Yes, certainly, and "man who uses other man's crystal ball eats other man's glass".

Still...it nags me.

But, my first point was about doing service, who does enough service?

Lozion | May 28, 2017 2:41:22 PM | 17
His name was #sethrich..
OJS | May 28, 2017 2:52:17 PM | 18
Jean, @15

It's Putin fault, he should change his behavior

[May 30, 2017] When Intelligence Is Not by Patrick Armstrong

Notable quotes:
"... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
"... intelligence sources ..."
"... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
"... four years earlier ..."
"... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
May 29, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.

In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret), probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many rewrites produced a consensus opinion.

A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy, or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So: question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin. All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that don't look like the real thing.

Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.

So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand, has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day). It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake. There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social media.

An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.

So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"?

I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when Marie Harf, the then US State Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.

There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were were then modified to please the Boss.

If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants to hear.

We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a modified hangout and very far from convincing .

Russia "invaded" Ukraine so many times it became a joke. The "evidence" was the usual social media accompanied by blurry satellite photos . So bad are the photos, in fact, that someone suggested that "Russian artillery" were actually combine harvesters . In one of the rare departures from the prescribed consensus, a former (of course) German Chief of Staff was utterly unconvinced by thse pictures and explained why . By contrast, here is a satellite photo of Russian aircraft in Syria ; others here . Sharply focussed and in colour. The "Russian invasion" photos were lower quality than the Cuban Missile Crisis photos taken six decades earlier! A hidden message? See below.

The so-called Syrian government CW attack on Ghouta in August 2013 was similarly based on social media; heavily dependent, in fact, on "Bellingcat". Quite apart from the improbability of Assad ordering a CW attack on a suburb a short drive away from arriving international inspectors, the whole story was adequately destroyed by Seymour Hersh . (Bellingcat's "proofs", by the way, can be safely ignored – see his faked-up "evidence" that Russians attacked an aid convoy in Syria .)

A dominant story for months has been that Russia somehow influenced the US presidential election. As ever, the Washington Post led the charge and the day after the election told us " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ". But when we finally saw the "secret assessments" they proved to be laughably damp squibs. The DHS/FBI report of 29 December 2016 carried this stunning disclaimer:

This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the DNI report of 6 January 2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the 2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". ( See 10:30 ). Jeffrey Carr: " Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange: not a state actor. Even those who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the NSA can mimic Russians or anyone else .

In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that the responders didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media machine wound up its sirens. The intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting" and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart by Theodore Postol .

So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.

  • Absurdly poor quality photos (maybe they were combine harvesters!).

  • Including a photo of damage to the port engine intake which contradicts the conclusion of the MH-17 report.

  • DHS "does not provide any warranties".

  • The one agency that would know has only "moderate confidence".

  • Irrelevant rants about RT or assumed nefarious Russian intentions.

  • "Pro-opposition social media reports".

There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed, of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.

In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:

Where done? By whom? That remains to be discovered. More Swamp to be drained.

[May 29, 2017] Jared Kushner Reportedly Discussed Setting Up Secret Communication Channel With Moscow by Mary Papenfuss

Is really Russian ambassador so negligent that he posted such an information over open channel? I doubt it. that means that Hayden may be lying and this is just a part of Purple revolution campaign of discreditation of Trump administration. Otherwise he reveals that the NSA broke Russian diplomatic communication cipher, which is biog NO-NO.
Notable quotes:
"... Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies." ..."
"... Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
May 29, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

Kushner's reported actions suggest "we are in a really dark place as a society," Michael Hayden said.

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that the reported plan by chief White House adviser Jared Kushner's to arrange secret communications with the Russians during President Donald Trump's transition was "off the map" and like nothing he has seen in his lifetime.

Hayden wants to chalk up the stunning plan to "naivete" rather than evil intentions - but that's not reassuring, he said in an interview on CNN.

"Right now, I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly comforting for me," he said. "What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?"

Hayden was commenting on reports, which first appeared in The Washington Post Friday, that Kushner discussed last December establishing a secret communication channel with the Kremlin - using Russian facilities - without any monitoring by the U.S.

Kushner discussed the idea in Trump Tower with Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., who was surprised by the request, the Post reported, because of security risks such an arrangement would pose to both countries.

Kushner emerged last Thursday as a person of interest in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies."

Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community.

"What degree of suspicion of the existing government, what degree of contempt for the administration they were replacing would be required again to think this was an acceptable course of action?" he asked.

Hayden added: "It says an awful lot about us as a society that we could actually harbor those kinds of feelings that the organs of the state would be used by my predecessor to come after me or ... to disrupt my administration in a way that made it seem legitimate to me to use the secure communications facilities of a foreign power - a foreign power that some in government alleged you were cooperating with to affect the American election."

It's evidence, he added, that "we are in a really dark place as a society."

[May 29, 2017] They Ought to Go to Jail: Gingrich Goes Off on Leakers

I think greed is the key factor in this particular chain of leaks story.
Notable quotes:
"... Kushner was assigned the job of meeting with Russian officials and bankers by then President-elect Trump, so he wasn't doing anything secretive or surreptitious. ..."
"... Gingrich also noted that there's not a single named source for the story, much like The Washington Post report last week that claimed a senior White House official close to the president was described as a "person of interest" in the Russia probe. ..."
"... He added that if the leakers are involved in former FBI Director Robert Mueller's investigation, he should be enraged. ..."
"... "He ought to lock somebody up," Gingrich said. "The people who leaked the British story were not in the White House. They were in the intelligence community, and they ought to go to jail." ..."
May 25, 2017 | http://insider.foxnews.com

....On "The Story" tonight, Newt Gingrich pointed out that Kushner was assigned the job of meeting with Russian officials and bankers by then President-elect Trump, so he wasn't doing anything secretive or surreptitious.

Gingrich also noted that there's not a single named source for the story, much like The Washington Post report last week that claimed a senior White House official close to the president was described as a "person of interest" in the Russia probe.

"I find that, frankly, sickening," Gingrich said, explaining that these reports are distracting from Trump's "amazing, historic" foreign trip.

"How do you know any of it's true?" Gingrich asked.

He added that if the leakers are involved in former FBI Director Robert Mueller's investigation, he should be enraged.

"He ought to lock somebody up," Gingrich said. "The people who leaked the British story were not in the White House. They were in the intelligence community, and they ought to go to jail."

Watch more above.

[May 29, 2017] What is Pompeo doing at CIA? And why isnt Sessions cleaning out the ratss nest at the DOJ and FBI?

Notable quotes:
"... Purely speculating, I suppose that, from the point of view of the people revealing this information, the end of removing Trump justifies the means. They must believe that it is very important to remove Trump. ..."
"... Unless there has been a major breakdown in US sigint procedures, it seems very unlikely that acknowledgement of cracking of high-level Russian crypto system would be released so casually. ..."
"... I immediately began speculating that someone is trying to panic the Russians ..."
"... IMO, Pat Buchanan has been spot on in his recent notes. His suggestion that President Trump appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the leakers is necessary to combat this war of innuendo ..."
"... The cover-up of MH-17 and the consequences of the truth being revealed in the public eye. Must maintain Cold War 2.0! ..."
"... Newspaper publishers and senior editors don't actually have a committee that reaches consensus and hands orders down, they all have similar experience and backgrounds, they have lunch together, they often do each other favors, they talk, they know what each other's opinions are. The "Deep State" is the same. Back in the '50s we referred to them as The Eastern Establishment, the descendants of the New England aristocracy who had a generations-long tradition of "public service," i.e. running the government the way they thought it should be run. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were from that milieu. ..."
"... I strongly agree, though, that much of the current hysteria is largely being driven by the Democratic scammers and highly paid "consultants" who are trying to hold on to the money and power they get from their positions. ..."
"... It seems rather apparent that the memes of "Russia brazenly interfered in our pure American democracy" and "Trump team meeting with Russian officials had sinister motives" are just cynical sticks to beat Trump with. ..."
"... Isn't it revealing that the WaPo, Times, CNN, NBC hysteria is all about the request for private communication channels between Trump transition and the Russians and not about the leak that the NSA broke Russian secure communications? ..."
"... Trump needs to get to the bottom of this and start heads rolling and fast. Heads rolling includes firings and prosecutions where applicable. He's supposed to be the consummate businessman. If someone in my department (fortune 500 company) released confidential corporate info to the press, financial or market details, there would be a serious cleaning of house. ..."
"... The block of Trump voters that was unusual in that they were not Republicans or GOP-leaning independents, would constitute a small, albeit decisive, percentage of Trump's total vote. Why such a small bloc should prove threatening to elites that enjoy the support of much larger groups of supporters is not obvious to me. ..."
"... Of course this is mooted now by President Trump's facile willingness to throw that bloc under the bus in his administration staffed partly with Wall Street titans and lobbyists, and, with a healthcare plan designed to hammer white older supporters in the purple swing states and red south. It appears Trump was just kidding about bringing back the middle class, and providing all Americans with cheaper, better, lower out-of-the-pocket healthcare. ..."
"... Perhaps this is an attempt to get the Russians to change their current system in the hopes that they will introduce a vulnerability. If so, the signal has been sent several times. ..."
"... This is far from the first supposed leak that revealed our ability to intercept Russian communications. Is this one worse than the last few times (recall the intercepts where Kislyak supposedly bragged about being able to use Flynn to influence Trump)? ..."
"... Time will tell if these are bonafide leaks or if someone in the IC is playing the long game against the Russians. ..."
"... I'm with Jack, that the simplest explanation is that Hillary was an uninspiring candidate. She couldn't get many Democrats enthused, let alone independent voters in the crucial states in the mid-west where the election was decided. ..."
"... IMO, the character of the election would have been very different if the Democrats had nominated Sanders. He had the enthusiasm factor on his side and a similar message against free trade and useless wars that would have competed well with Trump in the mid-west. Remember that Sanders defeated Hillary in the Michigan primary. ..."
"... The crux of the issue is that the Democrat establishment don't want to accept responsibility that they are Borgist to the core and will do everything to prevent a real outsider from getting their party nomination. At best they'll nominate a faux outsider like Obama. ..."
"... I am willing to bet that what we are observing is a BORG operation-not a Russian one. Let us pick reasonable stakes/time-frame and we can shake on it. ..."
"... For example it seems someone may have infiltrated the legislative branch's IT as well: http://www.wftv.com/news/politics/few-public-answers-to-puzzle-in-congressional-it-investigation/527155464 ..."
"... I see no reason the RNC would have to go to Guccifer2 or Russians for the data. All of that is readily available from certain vendors in the US. These vendors seem to me to be fairly unscrupulous and highly profit oriented. They'd sell their own mother for a few bucks, IMO. ..."
"... Even if the companies refused to sell DNC specific data to the RNC, these companies are populated with highly skilled, but hungry, tech workers from India and Pakistan that have access to probably just about everything (I know because I have hired some of these guys fresh off these projects myself and I like talking to them about their experience, especially after getting a few drinks into them). Some of them would steal and sell data and reports. Guccifer2 seems totally unnecessary. ..."
"... The RNC establishment dislikes Trump almost as much as the Democrats. ..."
"... Good point. I don't see where any of these people are saying they did it on Trump's behalf. I begin to think that Guccifer2 in a US person. I begin to think that this is all a US operation. I will sorely disappointed if Trump doesn't clean these people up and out. Maybe even one car accidents are in order for some of them. ..."
"... The suggestion that 'Guccifer 2.0' was linked to Russian intelligence originally came from 'CrowdStrike' and Dmitri Alperovitch . One can think of few better reasons for suspecting that – whatever his nationality – he was part of a Western-orchestrated 'information operation'. ..."
"... On the credentials of 'CrowdStrike' and Alperovitch, and the corruption of the cybersecurity industry, see a piece posted on 8 May by Jeffrey Carr entitled 'Cyber Intelligence and the Imaginary Other'. In general, Edward Luttwak is not a favourite person of mine, but the remarks Carr quotes from him about the very serious dangers of dealing with other countries on the basis of what you want to believe are to the point ..."
"... When you have a situation where people like Alperovitch can make very large sums of money by telling people what they want to hear, this makes it all too easy for people in positions of power and influence to lock themselves in a bubble. ..."
"... 'Crowdstrike's "Danger Close: Fancy Bear Tracking of Ukrainian Field Artillery Units" is a perfect example of performing cyber attribution with zero ground truth and, as Luttwak described, creating an imaginary "other" rather than making the effort to actually speak with people who know the facts on the ground. ..."
"... In a piece entitled 'Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach RunawayTrain?', Carr treated the suggestion with the contempt it – amply – deserves: 'OK. Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor.' ..."
"... Good thing coming from all that is that at least 60-70% of decent Americans whom still trusted the system will see that political system is completely broken and that change through political means is impossible. ..."
"... Colonel, isn't there another possibility: the information was obtained via a bug placed inside Trump Tower, thereby allowing someone to listen in on that conversation between Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak? The leak of that information could then be used to embarrass Team Trump, and the "news" about the information being obtained from decrypted Russian communications may simply be a cover story intended to disguise the illegal method used to obtain it. ..."
"... After all, which is more difficult: a) decrypting secure diplomatic communications b) sneaking into Trump Tower and planting a bug ..."
"... But consider this: if somebody bugged Trump Tower then they will know two things with certainty: 1) What Was Said between Kushner and Kizlyak 2) Kizlyak will report to Moscow on What Was Said. ..."
"... So, your theory is that the Obama Administration ordered an illegal surreptitious physical bugging of Trump Tower in order to know what the Trumpies were talking about. Well, that is what Trump claims as well . pl ..."
"... No, I didn't say that. I said that I agreed that any "black bag job" on Trump Tower done under the authorization of a FISA or other court warrant would be legal.What I pointed out (correctly) is that the absence of such a FISA warrant doesn't not mean that Trump Tower has not been bugged, and I brought up the instance of Tricky Dickie's plumbers to illustrate that point. ..."
"... And the FBI: looking into Trump-Russia for 10 months, nothing to show for it and meanwhile the torrential disclosure of really sensitive secrets continues unabated. Federal Bureau of Incompetence. ..."
"... I know that you don't know, but the lack of action by the responsible officials is worsening this whole mess. Politicians (Sessions, Pompeo) -- talkers not doers. And Trump??? Instead of kicking these guys asses to fix it, he's tweeting and throwing tantrums. ..."
May 29, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
mistah charley, ph.d. ,

Purely speculating, I suppose that, from the point of view of the people revealing this information, the end of removing Trump justifies the means. They must believe that it is very important to remove Trump. Possibly they are right.

Procopius -> mistah charley, ph.d. ,

I agree that the people who decide to burn assets as in this case must believe it is more important to remove Trump, but I don't know their reasons for thinking so. I think Pence will be at least an order of magnitude worse. I can't even begin to imagine if Pence gets removed, too, how much worse Paul Ryan would be.

b ,

I would not exclude though that the breach was not a real breach. The Russian ambo is a professional player. Some maskirovka may be part of this.

What is the most important though is that the media and IC try to fabricate a scandal out of contacts between presidential advisors and foreign diplomats.

It is the constitutional prerogative of the president to set and do foreign policy as he sees fit. His advisors acted in his name when they contacted Russian diplomats to set up a communication backchannel. Advisors of former presidents have done the same in such cases. It is nether a scandal nor a crime.

The real scandal are these leaks and the interference by the Intelligence Community and its puppets into the president's constitutional prerogative.

Bill Herschel -> b ,

Trump will not be impeached. It's all about the midterms, which might though I think not deliver a House majority ot the Democrats. But there will be no impeachment. President Pence? Don't hold your breath.

Henshaw -> Bill Herschel ,
Unless there has been a major breakdown in US sigint procedures, it seems very unlikely that acknowledgement of cracking of high-level Russian crypto system would be released so casually. More likely that Russians intentionally sent it through a less secure/known compromised channel.
Fredw ,
I immediately began speculating that someone is trying to panic the Russians using information obtained from some other source. On the other hand, you seem to imply that successful interception of communications is common and to be expected. I don't know what to think. I am floored.
Ghostship ,
US SIGINT successfully intercepts and decrypts what must surely be encrypted Russian diplomatic communications.
Maybe they're the communications the Russian aren't bothered about or even want the U.S. IC to intercept and decrypt. In this case the information is not sensitive as far as the Russians are concerned but it being made public demonstrates there are major problems somewhere in the U.S. government, and I'm assessing probably the State Department.
Andy ,

Even as an intel guy I realize that leaks are sometimes necessary and inevitable in a free society, but these recent actions are unjustified and were carried out for the sole purpose of court intrigue/beltway partisan politics.

Jack ,

This was exactly my feeling on reading the WaPo story. There should no longer be any doubt the extent the NeverTrumpers in the media and upper echelons of government will go to take him down. No national security secret is sacrosanct enough for these people. What makes them so desperate? Or has the level of callousness reached such a level that any and all of them believe they can act with impunity? The NeverTrumpers should recognize the genie is now out the bottle and every future president will be subject to the whims of this unaccountable fifth column.

IMO, Pat Buchanan has been spot on in his recent notes. His suggestion that President Trump appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the leakers is necessary to combat this war of innuendo . And second, who is gonna be next after the Confederate leaders in the cross-hairs of the PC crowd? The respect for both sides in our civil war is being thrown away by denigrating the southern leadership while absolving the Unionists of their rape & pillage.

Thomas -> Jack ,

The cover-up of MH-17 and the consequences of the truth being revealed in the public eye. Must maintain Cold War 2.0!

FB Ali ,

The US MSM is party to this frenzy of destruction. Both seem not to care how much damage this is doing to the United States.

The world watches in wonder and bemusement at this spectacle. Russia and China probably cannot believe their good fortune in having their main adversary/competitor thus publicly commit harakiri .

turcopolier ,

The term "Deep State" implies a bureaucratic conspiracy. IMO that is very unlikely. If there is a conspiracy against trump it is among the Democratic holdovers among presidential appointees. A number of them have the access required to receive such documents. pl

Procopius -> turcopolier ,

Newspaper publishers and senior editors don't actually have a committee that reaches consensus and hands orders down, they all have similar experience and backgrounds, they have lunch together, they often do each other favors, they talk, they know what each other's opinions are. The "Deep State" is the same. Back in the '50s we referred to them as The Eastern Establishment, the descendants of the New England aristocracy who had a generations-long tradition of "public service," i.e. running the government the way they thought it should be run. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were from that milieu.

I strongly agree, though, that much of the current hysteria is largely being driven by the Democratic scammers and highly paid "consultants" who are trying to hold on to the money and power they get from their positions.

Sam Peralta ,

This leak that we can decrypt Russian secure diplomatic communications proves that those intent on bringing down Trump, hate him more than the purported enemy Russia.

It seems rather apparent that the memes of "Russia brazenly interfered in our pure American democracy" and "Trump team meeting with Russian officials had sinister motives" are just cynical sticks to beat Trump with. Actors within our federal government are quite happy destroying our SIGINT advantage if that means they can take down Trump.

Isn't it revealing that the WaPo, Times, CNN, NBC hysteria is all about the request for private communication channels between Trump transition and the Russians and not about the leak that the NSA broke Russian secure communications?

turcopolier ,

It is IMO much more likely that the spy (leaker) is a presidential appointee who is a holdover from the BHO Administration rather than a professional employees of the IC. You greatly over estimate the power of the IC. Normally, the political appointees manipulate the IC people and not the other way around.

I would point to people like Evelyn Farkas who several times said on TV that she and a group of Democrats have banded together to screw Trump by using their access to government information. As for Maskirovka, what advantage would the Russians see in inventing a story like this? pl

LeaNder -> turcopolier ,

I would not exclude though that the breach was not a real breach. The Russian ambo is a professional player. Some maskirovka may be part of this.

Are you suggesting, however indirectly, the Russians helped out the Trump government by feeding a false info into the US media stream? with the knowledge it would lead nowhere but distract attention for a while?

J -> turcopolier ,

Here's a DTIC public released student research report from 1981 Garmisch regarding маскировка:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a112903.pdf

turcopolier ,

IMO this is not fake news. It is a massive violation of the US espionage laws. pl

Eric Newhill -> turcopolier ,
Ok then. I thought you were being tongue in cheek b/c it would represent such a massive violation of US espionage rules that it couldn't possibly be actually happening.

So you're serious. Trump needs to get to the bottom of this and start heads rolling and fast. Heads rolling includes firings and prosecutions where applicable. He's supposed to be the consummate businessman. If someone in my department (fortune 500 company) released confidential corporate info to the press, financial or market details, there would be a serious cleaning of house. Examples would be made. It would be ugly, but understood as totally necessary. That Trump has not begun this process is very disconcerting.

bks ,
There is no conspiracy . Trump is not fit for the office. He is now in zugzwang because if he throws anyone out of the inner circle they will reveal the level of ineptitude, and if he brings anyone in from outside, they will find out about it. His sons, who are supposed to be running his business interests at arm's length, invited themselves to a GOP high-level strategy meeting; the emoluments clause be damned.
TV -> bks ,

And Hillary, and the accompanying Clinton crime family, was fit?

different clue -> TV ,

To suspect that Trump is not fit for office is not to retro-decide that Clinton would have been fit for office after all.

My low opinion of many aspects of Trump does not elevate my opinion-after-the-fact of Clinton. Nor does it make me wish in hindsight that I had voted for Clinton after all. I always considered Trump a dangerous risk worth running to avoid the certain danger of a President Clinton.

And so it might well seem for bks.

Barbara Ann ,
This story states above the fold, right corner that US officials who either produced the report of the intercept or received the report of this successful intercept outside the IC in State, Defense, the NSC, etc. informed the Washington Post of the frailty of Russian diplomatic communications

Para. 2: " ,according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials." - is that the part to which you refer?

If your premise is right; that the leak exposes the fact that Russian diplomatic communications are insecure, this would appear to make what Snowden did look like a minor transgression. It would also appear to indicate that the leaker considers Trump a greater risk to national security that Russia. This rather ironically somewhat undermines the whole 'links to Russia' thing.

Crown Jewels of this magnitude must be a very closely guarded secret - i.e. very few people in the IC community and even fewer outside would be aware of the fact that Russian diplomatic encryption has been compromised. Intel reports produced using such sensitive source data must go to great lengths to disguise the nature of that source. Surely only the POTUS and a handful of other very senior officials would have access to raw decrypted intercepts. If this part of the WaPo article is to be believed then, the leaker would seem to be among a very rarefied group.

Cold War Zoomie -> Barbara Ann ,

Not even close.

"Crown Jewels of this magnitude must be a very closely guarded secret ,"

Yes and no. Reports are shared, not raw intercepts (typically not, but who knows?). The "gist" of the collection point was likely in the report(s) mentioned in the article, but not the details that are more tightly controlled.

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

Decameron ,
You can't make this up! Colonel, you truly captured the essence of the Kushner-Flynn meeting with the Russians.

In the tradition of Groucho's Freedonia, Chaplin's Great Dictator, Boris and Natasha,and Alfred E. Newman. But it really happened.

FB Ali ,

You obviously know more about such matters than I do.

However, it seems to me that actions are being taken by a number of persons, all aimed at bringing down the Trump presidency (without, of course, any obvious collusion between them). The motivation behind this could be either or both of the following:

    Because his victory was based on the mobilisation of ordinary Americans (who are normally not part of the political process). The political energisation of this bloc threatens established politicians and political parties, and their allies in the military-intelligence-industrial-media complex (which, I think, you refer to as the Borg). Because he advocated policies that would end the Cold War being waged by the Borg against Russia (policies that benefit the Borg, and enable parts of it to acquire both power and resources).

It seems to me that both of these are in play. Which implies that both the Democratic establishment as well as (at least, some) members of the Borg are behind this vicious campaign. I have no proof whether there is any overt collusion between (though it would surprise me if at least some individuals among the two groups did not consult together).

dilbert dogbert -> FB Ali ,

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

There were good reasons back in 1787 but are those reasons still valid today?

Dr.Puck -> FB Ali ,
The block of Trump voters that was unusual in that they were not Republicans or GOP-leaning independents, would constitute a small, albeit decisive, percentage of Trump's total vote. Why such a small bloc should prove threatening to elites that enjoy the support of much larger groups of supporters is not obvious to me.

Of course this is mooted now by President Trump's facile willingness to throw that bloc under the bus in his administration staffed partly with Wall Street titans and lobbyists, and, with a healthcare plan designed to hammer white older supporters in the purple swing states and red south. It appears Trump was just kidding about bringing back the middle class, and providing all Americans with cheaper, better, lower out-of-the-pocket healthcare.

As far as point number two goes, the reply to anybody who thinks Russia might be converted to a friend rather than a foe has to begin with:

"Perhaps the USA should target their nuclear deterrent at someone else, and, perhaps the Russians could do the same."

Cold War Zoomie ,

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

Freudenschade ,

Perhaps this is an attempt to get the Russians to change their current system in the hopes that they will introduce a vulnerability. If so, the signal has been sent several times.

This is far from the first supposed leak that revealed our ability to intercept Russian communications. Is this one worse than the last few times (recall the intercepts where Kislyak supposedly bragged about being able to use Flynn to influence Trump)?

Time will tell if these are bonafide leaks or if someone in the IC is playing the long game against the Russians.

Sam Peralta -> The Twisted Genius ,

"..until we understand the full scope of the Russian info op."

If you had to speculate, what would be the extent of this info op by the Russians? Since Clapper & Brennan and the breathless MSM have this incredible campaign of innuendo, I am curious what this info op could possibly be. Have the Russians executed such an info op anywhere else that we could look to get a sense?

"The Trump/RNC ground game was way more sophisticated and far reaching than anyone gives them credit for."

I don't believe they had much of a GOTV campaign, compared to Hillary's. They just didn't have the staffing to organize and execute folks with iPads knocking on doors in the neighborhoods.

"It was an information operation (like all political campaigns) worthy of anything the Russians could have developed. It certainly wasn't just a get out the vote campaign. It was also a suppress/discourage the vote campaign."

They did have a small operation in San Antonio managed by Jared Kushner staffed with Silicon Valley social media folks put together by Peter Thiel that tested and targeted messaging and were able to monitor enthusiasm that informed where Trump held his rallies. This enthusiasm differential led to many more rallies by Trump. But, one can argue this enthusiasm was directly linked to Trump running an outsider campaign and politically active voters preference for the anti-establishment candidate. Recall the voter enthusiasm for Obama vs McCain, when Obama ran to change the system - close Guantanamo, end the wars, etc. Note that Hillary was backed big by the Silicon Valley establishment - Eric Schmidt & Google as well as Sheryl Sandberg & Facebook among others. Voter suppression tactics are also not new. Every election we have stories of robocalls and other communication methods targeting some voters that they can't vote without IDs or their polling station has changed among ways to suppress votes. Both parties engage in this.

I'm with Jack, that the simplest explanation is that Hillary was an uninspiring candidate. She couldn't get many Democrats enthused, let alone independent voters in the crucial states in the mid-west where the election was decided.

IMO, the character of the election would have been very different if the Democrats had nominated Sanders. He had the enthusiasm factor on his side and a similar message against free trade and useless wars that would have competed well with Trump in the mid-west. Remember that Sanders defeated Hillary in the Michigan primary.

The crux of the issue is that the Democrat establishment don't want to accept responsibility that they are Borgist to the core and will do everything to prevent a real outsider from getting their party nomination. At best they'll nominate a faux outsider like Obama.

Ishmael Zechariah -> The Twisted Genius ,

A few questions not necessarily in logical order: Did the RNC support Trump without qualification during the election cycle in the USA? Do they do so now? Do you think it was the Russians or a disgruntled Sanders supporter who supplied the DNC correspondence to Wikileaks? Who killed that fellow? SMERSH? Did Ms. Clinton violate security rules by using unprotected servers? Do you consider Salon.com a reliable source? Does their reporting of the Syria story stand up to scrutiny?

I am willing to bet that what we are observing is a BORG operation-not a Russian one. Let us pick reasonable stakes/time-frame and we can shake on it.

Ishmael Zechariah

Fred -> The Twisted Genius ,

Thanks goodness no Democrats got involved with the Russians, well other than by giving half-million dollar speeches. Perhaps it was another state actor, like Pakistan, who penetrated them. Maybe they were pissed off their guest, Osama, got knocked of by BHO while you know who was SOS. "f you prick us do we not bleed? ,.And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"

For example it seems someone may have infiltrated the legislative branch's IT as well: http://www.wftv.com/news/politics/few-public-answers-to-puzzle-in-congressional-it-investigation/527155464

Apparently she of the "rigged primary" (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) isn't too happy her "lost" electronics wasn't returned by the Capital Hill Police
http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2017/05/27/few-public-answers-to-puzzle-in-congressional-it-investigation/

Now one has to wonder why the words "hacking" or "bleach bit" weren't used by either party in the video provided by wsb radio?

"Once the FBI was on them, they couldn't fight back." You mean they couldn't have their spouse sit down to chat about the grandchildren with the Attorney General?

As to micro-targeting of voters, that has been around a long time. The first exposure I had to the idea was Tom Loftus' book "The Art of Legislative Politics". The electronic era was well represented by Mark Grebner:

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-8187-end-of-an-era-for-the-master-of-voter-lists.html

Eric Newhill -> Fred ,
I see no reason the RNC would have to go to Guccifer2 or Russians for the data. All of that is readily available from certain vendors in the US. These vendors seem to me to be fairly unscrupulous and highly profit oriented. They'd sell their own mother for a few bucks, IMO.

Even if the companies refused to sell DNC specific data to the RNC, these companies are populated with highly skilled, but hungry, tech workers from India and Pakistan that have access to probably just about everything (I know because I have hired some of these guys fresh off these projects myself and I like talking to them about their experience, especially after getting a few drinks into them). Some of them would steal and sell data and reports. Guccifer2 seems totally unnecessary.

But mostly it's all available from the vendors themselves.

Fred -> Eric Newhill ,

Of course they wouldn't need a hacker for voter data. The point you miss is that the RNC was supporting whom prior to Trump? Cruz, Rubio, Kaisich and the rest; not least being the great Jeb! Bush - I think he blew through $130,000,000 before becoming loser # twelve. The RNC establishment dislikes Trump almost as much as the Democrats.

Eric Newhill -> Fred ,
Good point. I don't see where any of these people are saying they did it on Trump's behalf. I begin to think that Guccifer2 in a US person. I begin to think that this is all a US operation. I will sorely disappointed if Trump doesn't clean these people up and out. Maybe even one car accidents are in order for some of them.
David Habakkuk -> Eric Newhill ,

The suggestion that 'Guccifer 2.0' was linked to Russian intelligence originally came from 'CrowdStrike' and Dmitri Alperovitch . One can think of few better reasons for suspecting that – whatever his nationality – he was part of a Western-orchestrated 'information operation'.

On the credentials of 'CrowdStrike' and Alperovitch, and the corruption of the cybersecurity industry, see a piece posted on 8 May by Jeffrey Carr entitled 'Cyber Intelligence and the Imaginary Other'. In general, Edward Luttwak is not a favourite person of mine, but the remarks Carr quotes from him about the very serious dangers of dealing with other countries on the basis of what you want to believe are to the point .

When you have a situation where people like Alperovitch can make very large sums of money by telling people what they want to hear, this makes it all too easy for people in positions of power and influence to lock themselves in a bubble.

As Carr argues – assembling a mass of supporting evidence:

'Crowdstrike's "Danger Close: Fancy Bear Tracking of Ukrainian Field Artillery Units" is a perfect example of performing cyber attribution with zero ground truth and, as Luttwak described, creating an imaginary "other" rather than making the effort to actually speak with people who know the facts on the ground. '

(See https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/cyber-intelligence-and-the-imaginary-other-acb340e8d87f .)

After 'CrowdStrike' made the initial link to the FSB and more particularly the GRU, the suggestion was made that the identification of the initials of Dzerzhinsky in the material from 'Guccifer 2.0' pointed unambiguously to a Russian origin. So according to Thomas Rid, of King's College, London:

'The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named "Феликс Эдмундович," a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times.

In a piece entitled 'Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach RunawayTrain?', Carr treated the suggestion with the contempt it – amply – deserves: 'OK. Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor.'

(See https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/can-facts-slow-the-dnc-breach-runaway-train-lets-try-14040ac68a55 .)

For another good account of the history, including a recollection of Alperovitch as a bit-part-player in the campaign to suggest a massive Russian cyber-offensive against Georgia at the time of the 2008 war, see a piece posted in March by Yasha Levine, entitled 'From Russia, with Panic', at https://thebaffler.com/salvos/from-russia-with-panic-levine .nt.

The Twisted Genius

I remember the stories about the Clintons being deeply involved with the Chinese during the Clinton administration. That was treasonous and scandalous at the time. And Big Grandma was supposed to be bought and paid for by the Saudis just last year. The DNC purposefully built a notably undemocratic primary process with a superdelegate system to guarantee the primacy of the smoke filled back room. They did that because they admired the past orderliness of the RNC process. What an unmitigated disaster that turned out to be. All this sordidness cannot be used to justify RNC and Trump team sordidness. Sunlight purifies all, although all those in power seem to abhor the sunlight like Nosferatu.

Fred -> The Twisted Genius ,

The DNC lawyers have just argued in court that they don't need to have fair primary processes:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-argues-in-court-we-dont-owe-anyone-a-fair-primary-process/article/2621767

Back in 2008 one of Obama's intellectual mentors, the husband of Samantha Power, Cass Sunstein, was arguing that there should be agents provocateur in the election process:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585##

Apparently the New Hope and Change world order was going to be perpetual. It seems we know where the "Resistance" gets it's intellectual foundations.

" Sunlight purifies all ," I would sure like to see some of that in action.

different clue -> Fred ,

Well . . . that's what this Bitter Berner lawsuit hopes to achieve. Also, they hope to get the Court to FORCE the DNC to give back all the donations-money it raised from Hopeful Berners under the false pretense of holding a fair and balanced Primary.

If the Bitter Berners can win their suit, and win every appeal, the DNC may be hazzing a sad biggly.

Keith Harbaugh -> The Twisted Genius ,
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/13/the-soft-coup-of-russia-gate/ where Parry seems to think worrying about Russian attempts to bug the Oval Office is laughable.

Parry compares worrying about such things to vintage-1960 comedies and satires:

One could picture Boris and Natasha, the evil spies in the Bullwinkle cartoons, disguised as photographers slipping listening devices between the cushions of the sofas.

Or we could hear how Russians are again threatening to "impurify all of our precious bodily fluids," as "Dr. Strangelove" character, Gen. Jack D. Ripper,
warned us in the 1964 movie.

I am willing to believe that the USG/MSM stories about, say, the supposed chemical weapon attack in Syria are spin to promote the interests of Israel, but I am not willing to dismiss very proper concerns about Russian intelligence efforts. For those totally naďve about such things, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

Why would Parry dismiss such concerns? That part of his article is clearly consistent with known Russian interests.

Sharac ,

It just might be that they considered this a "petty" matter not worth some extra hassle as they've probably assumed that everyone on Trumps team will be monitored and main locations such as Trump tower definitely not secured (aka "bugged from basement to the roof"). Also what better for Russia than US having non shooting civil war (with sad prospect of it becoming shooting if libtards continue with their nonsense) and much of its assets looking internally.

Good thing coming from all that is that at least 60-70% of decent Americans whom still trusted the system will see that political system is completely broken and that change through political means is impossible.

Yeah, Right -> turcopolier ,

Colonel, isn't there another possibility: the information was obtained via a bug placed inside Trump Tower, thereby allowing someone to listen in on that conversation between Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak? The leak of that information could then be used to embarrass Team Trump, and the "news" about the information being obtained from decrypted Russian communications may simply be a cover story intended to disguise the illegal method used to obtain it.

After all, which is more difficult: a) decrypting secure diplomatic communications b) sneaking into Trump Tower and planting a bug

Just a thought...

LeaNder -> turcopolier ,

I am on my way out for a while, anyway. Which means too, I followed matters more superficially for a couple of days already. My excuses to everyone involved.

*******

Fact is, I was close to dropping my response to b, but then I stumbled across this in your response: "As for Maskirovka, what advantage would the Russians see in inventing a story like this? pl "

some of you are wasting time here by making up the most outlandish theories imaginable.

No 'outlandish theories' involved beyond wanting to understand what b meant, really. Besides, you can go back and check my comment during the election campaign around here, I was never a fan of "Russia-gate" as it surfaced already then. If I understand your anger at all ,

******

Looked at very, very superficially the most recent story in the series seems to be a variation of Clinton's private server theme. Yes, no doubt for the nitwit, non-expert on matters. Not a theorist, by the way. Nitwit watcher only. But interested in narratives.

But: How can I put this well and short enough

a) Clinton's private server endangered at least the whatever level of secret content sent that way. If its main reason wasn't to hide almost everything else?

b) Jared Kustner, allegedly went even one step further, by intending to deliver information in a setting that wouldn't even leave a trace (or need a shredder after - the public wouldn't even know). In other words, he seemingly wanted to make sure no one could watch or check.

Room full of mirrors?

Cold War Zoomie ,

Lots of people can read lots of reports. But who gets briefed? Hmmmm.

Yeah, Right ,
But consider this: if somebody bugged Trump Tower then they will know two things with certainty: 1) What Was Said between Kushner and Kizlyak 2) Kizlyak will report to Moscow on What Was Said.

Those buggers don't need to decrypt (or even intercept) any communication between Kizlyak and Moscow, they need only assume that Kizlyak will faithfully do his job in order to deduce that such a communication would be sent.

So their bugging of that room in Trump Tower is a twofer:

1) they can leak the conversation to embarrass Trump

2) they can embarrass the Russians by insinuating that their encrypted communications system is compromised.

"A US government entity that desired to bug Trump Tower would require a FISA or other court warrant to do a "black bag job" legally"

Agreed, if they wanted to do this legally. I believe that Richard Nixon never asked for a court warrant to break into the Watergate Tower. But in that case absence of evidence turned out not to be evidence of absence - he simply did it anyway, and hang the legal niceties.

turcopolier ,

So, your theory is that the Obama Administration ordered an illegal surreptitious physical bugging of Trump Tower in order to know what the Trumpies were talking about. Well, that is what Trump claims as well . pl

Yeah, Right -> turcopolier ,
No, I didn't say that. I said that I agreed that any "black bag job" on Trump Tower done under the authorization of a FISA or other court warrant would be legal.What I pointed out (correctly) is that the absence of such a FISA warrant doesn't not mean that Trump Tower has not been bugged, and I brought up the instance of Tricky Dickie's plumbers to illustrate that point.

This is my theory: there is no reason to believe the claim that this intel was obtained by decrypting the communications between Moscow and its ambassador in Washington.

There is good reason to doubt that claim i.e. if it were true then this would itself constitute a major breach of "sources and methods". So my theory is that this part of the story is false, in which case the intel had to have be obtained in some other manner. As in: someone had a bug in that room. I'm not saying that Obama ordered such a bugging. I'm not saying that the US IC put such a bug in there. All I'm suggesting is that the source of this intel was a bug in that room, and it went from there to WaPo via Person Or Persons Unknown.

turcopolier ,

As a former DIO for the ME and S Asia and SSO det. commander long ago I assure you that some SIGINT reports are disseminated in "raw" form to recipients who are not analysts. pl

Cold War Zoomie -> turcopolier ,

Thanks for the clarification. That's a side of "production" I didn't know, as usual. Back to minding the cogs in the machine.

TV ,

And the FBI: looking into Trump-Russia for 10 months, nothing to show for it and meanwhile the torrential disclosure of really sensitive secrets continues unabated. Federal Bureau of Incompetence.

turcopolier ,

As I wrote, IMO it is more likely to be political appointees from the BHO world who are still in government who are doing the leaking. They have just as much access depending on their job. Think Evelyn Farkas and her like. pl

TV -> turcopolier ,
I know that you don't know, but the lack of action by the responsible officials is worsening this whole mess. Politicians (Sessions, Pompeo) -- talkers not doers.
And Trump??? Instead of kicking these guys asses to fix it, he's tweeting and throwing tantrums.

[May 29, 2017] Former CIA Officer NYT May Have Compromised Terror Investigation to Hurt Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA officer Mike Baker said on "Your World" that the leakers in the White House and intelligence agencies will only stop "if there are consequences." Baker said that those who had access to the leaked sensitive material must be "hauled in" and talked to very directly about their activities, and in some cases polygraphed. ..."
"... Leaks from the White House have been copious lately, causing headaches for President Trump and his staff. "When you continue to lower the bar and you continue to normalize the idea that, you know, people can't keep their pie holes shut, and it's okay because there's ultimately no consequences, then sure, you create this environment where suddenly you have news articles that contain only anonymous sources," Baker said. ..."
May 29, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

Former CIA officer Mike Baker said on "Your World" that the leakers in the White House and intelligence agencies will only stop "if there are consequences." Baker said that those who had access to the leaked sensitive material must be "hauled in" and talked to very directly about their activities, and in some cases polygraphed.

The New York Times published a report yesterday on the terror attack in Manchester that contained sensitive, detailed information on the investigation into the horrific bombing. While the information may have come from Britain, Baker said that the Times may also have knowingly disrupted an ongoing terrorist investigation in hopes of taking another shot at the Trump administration.

"It's a possibility," Baker told host Neil Cavuto.

Leaks from the White House have been copious lately, causing headaches for President Trump and his staff. "When you continue to lower the bar and you continue to normalize the idea that, you know, people can't keep their pie holes shut, and it's okay because there's ultimately no consequences, then sure, you create this environment where suddenly you have news articles that contain only anonymous sources," Baker said.

Watch more from "Your World" above.

[May 29, 2017] How the Kushner Story Hurts U.S. Intelligence The American Conservative

The initial hypnosis of Philip Giraldi that Russian diplomatic communications are compromised is logical, but at the same time pretty weak.
More probably the intersection occurred in Trump tower which was "bugged". Or this is a fake injected to harm Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... It is generally believed, correctly, that the NSA intercepts nearly all diplomatic communications originating from embassies in Washington, which is not to say that it is always successful at decrypting them. Decryption requires an enormous expenditure of time, money, and effort. ..."
"... Now that the Russians know that their communications are not secure, they will take necessary steps to tighten up their procedures and protocols, which means that the United States government will no longer be able to read their message traffic and will start all over with having to break into the new system. This reality will be enormously costly both to Russia and the U.S., and it will mean that a major intelligence advantage that Washington possessed will no longer be viable. ..."
"... However one feels about the paranoid and reactionary post-9/11 level of global spying carried out by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, being able to read an adversary's mail provides a huge advantage if one wants to avoid surprises and mitigate factors that could result in unnecessary conflict. ..."
"... And, to be completely fair, it also gives one an advantage if you are planning on mischief yourself and want to know how an opponent will react. Either way, that ability would have been one of the crown jewels of the intelligence community-and losing that advantage over Russia is an enormous, self-inflicted intelligence failure. Yet the media has chosen to ignore that real disaster because they want the story to be Kushner and Trump, not the leaker who has done tremendous damage to the nation's intelligence collection capability. ..."
"... But the NSA had actually broken them and was reading their messages." Well, *maybe*. There are, of course, a number of alternative possibilities. ..."
"... Let's face it: the only information we have access to must come from one of several highly untrustworthy sources. None of these sources consider providing the truth to the American public to be central to their mission. ..."
"... The very countries Washington should be cultivating, not demonizing. But this kind of irrational behaviour is to be expected of an empire in irreversible decline. Sad. ..."
May 29, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

So it is likely that the Kushner story will become just another part of the endless special counsel investigation into the Trump administration's alleged Russian links. Yet the real story should be the "leak" that revealed the details of the Kushner proposal. The leaker, whoever he was, provided highly classified and very restricted access information to the media; it indicated that the Kushner discussions with the Russians took place in Trump Tower and that a report on the proposal was then relayed back to Moscow using Russian diplomatic communications, which were intercepted, decrypted, and retained by the National Security Agency (NSA).

It is generally believed, correctly, that the NSA intercepts nearly all diplomatic communications originating from embassies in Washington, which is not to say that it is always successful at decrypting them. Decryption requires an enormous expenditure of time, money, and effort. It is almost always limited to communications of countries that are considered to be adversaries-which these days would include Russia, China, and Iran-or potential sources of information on transnational issues like terrorism or drug trafficking. And even when there is a major effort, the attempt to crack the encryption sometimes fails, particularly when one is dealing with a sophisticated opponent.

It is clear from the Kushner leaker's tale that the Russians were confident that their diplomatic communications were secure. But the NSA had actually broken them and was reading their messages. Now that the Russians know that their communications are not secure, they will take necessary steps to tighten up their procedures and protocols, which means that the United States government will no longer be able to read their message traffic and will start all over with having to break into the new system. This reality will be enormously costly both to Russia and the U.S., and it will mean that a major intelligence advantage that Washington possessed will no longer be viable.

However one feels about the paranoid and reactionary post-9/11 level of global spying carried out by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, being able to read an adversary's mail provides a huge advantage if one wants to avoid surprises and mitigate factors that could result in unnecessary conflict.

And, to be completely fair, it also gives one an advantage if you are planning on mischief yourself and want to know how an opponent will react. Either way, that ability would have been one of the crown jewels of the intelligence community-and losing that advantage over Russia is an enormous, self-inflicted intelligence failure. Yet the media has chosen to ignore that real disaster because they want the story to be Kushner and Trump, not the leaker who has done tremendous damage to the nation's intelligence collection capability.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Howard, May 29, 2017 at 12:43 pm

"But the NSA had actually broken them and was reading their messages." Well, *maybe*. There are, of course, a number of alternative possibilities. The information might be intercepted BEFORE it is encrypted, either through technological means or because the Russians have a leak of their own. Or it could be that the alleged NSA discoveries are in fact plausible inventions.

Let's face it: the only information we have access to must come from one of several highly untrustworthy sources. None of these sources consider providing the truth to the American public to be central to their mission. The best we can do is to create Just-So stories that seem to fit the claims made by these untrustworthy sources.

Lefty, May 29, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Mr. Giraldi,

Your thread unravels if it was the Russians who leaked the intelligence. After all, as an operation to discredit the president and his chief advisor, it was flawless.
In this reading Jared stepped into the trap neatly set for him. He provided the powder and the fuse, leaving it to the Russians to light it off when they pleased.
And I guess this doesn't make Flynn's failure to protect Jared and his extensive contacts with the Russians look any better.

Hanna Khayyat, May 29, 2017 at 1:25 pm

Call the plumbers at once!

delia ruhe, May 29, 2017 at 3:24 pm

" countries that are considered to be [US] adversaries-which these days would include Russia, China, and Iran "

The very countries Washington should be cultivating, not demonizing. But this kind of irrational behaviour is to be expected of an empire in irreversible decline. Sad.

[May 29, 2017] Bongino Kushner 'Leak' the Latest in 'Evidence-Free' Probe to Destroy Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Former federal agent Dan Bongino said a new report from sources in the Trump administration is the latest in the press' mission to "take down the president." "The Washington Post" reported that top adviser Jared Kushner tried to set up "back-channel" communications with Russian officials. ..."
"... "Is that a federal crime?" he asked incredulously. "This is really disturbing." Bongino said left-leaning media outlets like the Post and the "New York Times" are engaged in an "evidence-free investigation that is simply determined to take down the president." He said White House leaks must stop and that the entire Trump-Russia probe will be a "stain on the nation." ..."
May 29, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

Former federal agent Dan Bongino said a new report from sources in the Trump administration is the latest in the press' mission to "take down the president." "The Washington Post" reported that top adviser Jared Kushner tried to set up "back-channel" communications with Russian officials.

Bongino, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in the Maryland panhandle, said he similarly bought a burner phone to create a "back-channel" with his campaign manager.

"Is that a federal crime?" he asked incredulously. "This is really disturbing." Bongino said left-leaning media outlets like the Post and the "New York Times" are engaged in an "evidence-free investigation that is simply determined to take down the president." He said White House leaks must stop and that the entire Trump-Russia probe will be a "stain on the nation."

Watch the clip above.

[May 29, 2017] Rep Green After Reviewing Evidence I Felt Compelled to Call For Trump s Impeachment

May 29, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
Monday on MSNBC, while discussing his call on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for President Donald Trump to be impeached, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) declared he did so because he "felt compelled" after reviewing evidence.

Green said,

"This is not something that I wanted to do, sir, it's something that I felt compelled to do after reviewing evidence. We live in a country where we believe no police officer, no congressman, no senator and no president is above the law.

When the President decided that he would fire the FBI director who was investigating his campaign, which means that he was investigating him, the president, when he decided to fire him and he acknowledged that he was doing it for this reason, when you couple that with the fact that he said that the Russian thing was a made-up story and he said it is a witch-hunt, and then he went on to tweet something that may be considered an intimidating statement with reference to a recording that he might have, when you combine these things you have obstruction of justice.

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense."

[May 29, 2017] Wheel and Fight -- Pat Buchanans Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump by Peter Brimelow

Notable quotes:
"... If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. ..."
"... Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated ..."
"... The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Conservative Review ..."
"... Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems ..."
"... Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere. ..."
"... President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924. ..."
"... European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses. ..."
"... My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. ..."
"... Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that. ..."
May 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement.

Thus the Ruling Class's Trayvon Martin , Ferguson and Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated Narrative Collapses -- inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left's amoral imperative to incite its black clients against the white American majority.

And the current "Impeach Trump!" frenzy really has nothing to do with Russia or Comey-it's simply the latest expression of the Left's long-brewing refusal to accept defeat in the 2016 election, which it counted on to complete its coup against the Historic American Nation [ Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated , by Peter Hassan, Daily Caller , May 17, 2017].

It's as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump was always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate votes, might be more difficult-although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could be guilted into capitulation, like Richard Nixon, unlike Bill Clinton ). The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system - and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to bureaucrats and kritarchs .

And the great news: we now have a road map to how a patriot President can survive a Ruling Class induced hysteria- Patrick J. Buchanan's just-published Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever .

Buchanan's book is important and powerful-but somber: he's not joking at all with the last four words of his title, although he doesn't dwell on it. It's a theme that has increasingly appeared in his recent columns, here and here and here .

... ... ...

Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969, now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything yet seen under Trump:

Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon's situation as did I. "It is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969," wrote Broder on October 7. "The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."

This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point, although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.

Contrary to his current Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement.

... ... ...

Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class -- "for reasons I could not comprehend," says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, "given his centrist politics and even liberal policies "

... ... ...

Although it's now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good.

.... ... ...

What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally, the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration, which out-of-control Leftist judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution. Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic American Nation is inextricable from his own.

Not for the first time , I agree with Conservative Review 's Daniel Horowitz:

As soon as the president returns home from Europe, he should call in leaders of Congress and demand that they vote on as many of these 20 immigration and homeland security ideas as possible . Specifically, they must:

    Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal year. Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate rejections of visas. Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.

In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It's time they actually confront the issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding action from Congress to deal with the courts.

Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and continuing every major Obama policy.

Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems , May 23 2017. Link in original.

... ... ...

Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

El Dato , May 28, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

He continued Johnson's suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.

Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere.

Priss Factor , May 29, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT

WSJ's loopy version of 'nationalism' https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nationalism-can-solve-the-crisis-of-islam-1495830440

anon , May 29, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

Robert A. Caro's devastating multi-volume biography, eh?

Given all the dirt on Johnson now out there, hagiography might be a better description.

Anon , May 29, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT

Nation of Immigrants = Nation of Unassimilable Foreigners

Carlton Meyer , Website May 29, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT

President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924.

This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding, and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required. Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this. http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm

jilles dykstra , May 29, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT

http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/opinie-op-zondag-trump-is-een-blamage-voor-de-hele-vrije-wereld~a4497150/

Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.

The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer. Translation:

That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with all that post WWII USA has as values.

Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.

European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses.

LondonBob , May 29, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT

@anon Robert A. Caro's devastating multi-volume biography, eh?

Given all the dirt on Johnson now out there, hagiography might be a better description.

Jim Christian , May 29, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT

The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing. It's taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those who knew of LBJ's ongoing corruptions to his end.

Parsifal , May 29, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it's on the money, Trump really needs to come out swinging.

War for Blair Mountain , May 29, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold Warrior. The Cold War which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us was a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born White American Extermination Act.

Donald Trump is not worth defending nor saving .

nsa , May 29, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed ..starting with Brits like Brimmie.

Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that.

All evidence points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in Asia.

Evidence is no problem for a Brit imperialist ..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by an evil cabal in the US Knesset er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan ..they are relics from a bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change ..the white silent majority has disappeared and so will the ragtag American empire.

[May 28, 2017] JFK had back-channels to both the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why? He didn't trust the CIA Then he was shot.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is in a very difficult place considering his relationship with the Deep State and the intelligence services. If he really wants to screw with the CIA before he meets his own destiny he should release all the JFK files that are still classified. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Bob In Portland | May 28, 2017 1:45:10 AM | 50

JFK had back-channels to both the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why? He didn't trust the CIA Then he was shot.

Trump is in a very difficult place considering his relationship with the Deep State and the intelligence services. If he really wants to screw with the CIA before he meets his own destiny he should release all the JFK files that are still classified.

[May 26, 2017] Huh, so that happened

May 26, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

Hidari 05.19.17 at 10:50 am

@3
Why are you ignoring the idea that Trump is stupid and genuinely didn't understand the impact sacking Comey would have on his reputation, such as it is?

From OP

'A total Trump legal implosion would be bad for Republicans generally.'

Well short term, but can Trump's demise really be worse than Nixon's? (Perhaps it can, but seems unlikely at the moment). And Nixon's political demise seemed to be a bad thing for the Republicans, and for a short time, it was. But Nixon was 'the last liberal', a Keynesian who founded the EPA. Removing him enabled the Republicans to purge their party of the last 'moderate Republicans' and move hard to the right, and with the Reagan counter-revolution they shifted American politics to the extreme right, where it has remained ever since.

'It's hard to imagine Mueller isn't going to find something that Trump really really doesn't want him to find'.

Mueller will find out that, like all wealthy American capitalists, without exception, Trump is a sleazebag and a scumbag who played fast and loose with the law (crony capitalism is the only kind of capitalism there is, or has ever been). Trump probably has links with unpleasant Russian oligarchs, not because they are Russian, but because they are oligarchs. Will that be enough to hang Trump? Depends on how much the Republicans want President Pence. A lot, would be my guess. So yes Trump is probably doomed, but maybe in his second term (if he has one) not his first. Will he go peacefully or accept defeat like Nixon? Not a chance. Remember Trump has the army and the armed police force on his side. When states fracture that counts for a lot more than the Democrats' de facto control of the media.

'One might be afraid that Trump would start a war to distract the public's attention, as Clinton did, but he's already done that so what else is new?'

... ... ... MFB 05.19.17 at 11:00 am ( 9 )

I suspect, he means in this situation. The rule of law, for the United States government, generally translates as something rather different from what it means for the rest of us. And institutional damage to the United States government is probably a good thing for the rest of the world, and arguably a good thing for U.S. citizens in general.
Layman 05.19.17 at 11:53 am ( 13 )
I suspect Trump will in a matter of months pardon Flynn for any and all crimes he may have committed. If as it seems the most obvious and egregious wrongdoing can be attributed to Flynn, and much of the ensuing cover-up activity has centered around that, it is the simplest way to end the investigation without any negative legal result for Trump.

Trump's people can claim they didn't know what Flynn was up to, and even though there's plenty of evidence they did know, we've learned that lying to the public (as e.g. Pence has clearly done) isn't actually a crime, so they will survive relatively unscathed.

[May 26, 2017] This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!

May 26, 2017 | www.politico.com
"With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special council appointed!" Trump tweeted, after an unusually quiet 24 hours online.

He added in a second tweet: "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!"

[May 25, 2017] A Special Prosecutor for Criminal Leaks by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them? Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests. ..."
"... For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The "failing New York Times" has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning. And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate." ..."
"... With the Russian spin, the so-called liberal establishment landed an unprecedented coup. It was made up by the Dems and the Obama in the background, to tie President Trump's hand and bring him in the confrontation with the Russians. The US "Deep State" needs a bogeyman to enrich themselves by producing weapons. ..."
"... One is surprised that the Trump Administration allows playing a cat-and-mouse game with it. They should crack down on the FBI internal structure and get after the leaks. Trump should be as merciless as Obama was with the whistleblowers. Perhaps he should be even harder because all of the people had top security clearance. That means, they committed a felony. ..."
"... I think the Seth Rich story needs to be fully investigated, and, even if the Kim Dotcom story was phony, the Rich thing looks real if based only on the reaction to it by the power structure. ..."
May 23, 2017 | www.unz.com
20Comments Reply

Who is the real threat to the national security?

Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?

Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.

President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.

On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.

Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.

But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?

The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.

Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the "Resistance" - like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.

And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.

"Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?" asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.

One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?

In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.

Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.

When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.

And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.

Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer - for Watergate. The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.

Felt, "Deep Throat," was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt's identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness."

Which brings us to the point.

The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.

Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them? Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests. The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their identities protected. This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.

For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The "failing New York Times" has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning. And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."

When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.

When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

Cyrano , May 23, 2017 at 6:39 am GMT

If the Americans let the deep state bamboozle them into removing Trump, they don't deserve to have not only a democracy, but a country as well. Who in their right mind would believe that Trump is in cahoots with the Russians? Maybe decades of (successful even if poorly constructed) propaganda has lowered the threshold of creativity needed in order for a lie to pass as truth, but this is going beyond the limits of tolerance. Not even a 5th grader would buy into this nonsense. The deep state is damaging the reputation of US in the world by trying to get away with such poorly constructed fabrications. This is an insult to all Americans. The deep state should be forced at least to come up with something more intelligent if they want to accomplish what they are aiming for – removal of Trump.

englishmike , May 23, 2017 at 10:01 am GMT

When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

And now that it is becoming impossible to avoid the conclusion that Seth Rich was murdered for sharing over 44,000 DNC e-mails with Wikileaks (the leaks stopped when Rich died), should the office proposed by Mr Buchanan also investigate the strong possibility that the "Russian hacking" fake news story has been a deliberate, traitorous attempt to undermine a legitimately elected president of of the United States of America?

Ludwig Watzal , Website May 23, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

The conspiracy against a just elected US president by his predecessor, the Democratic Party, the so-called liberal media and large parts of the GOP is unprecedented in American history. The media prostitutes publish stories based on anonymous sources, and everybody takes them for the truth. On can call such report unfounded rumors. Nobody should take them seriously.

With the Russian spin, the so-called liberal establishment landed an unprecedented coup. It was made up by the Dems and the Obama in the background, to tie President Trump's hand and bring him in the confrontation with the Russians. The US "Deep State" needs a bogeyman to enrich themselves by producing weapons.

One is surprised that the Trump Administration allows playing a cat-and-mouse game with it. They should crack down on the FBI internal structure and get after the leaks. Trump should be as merciless as Obama was with the whistleblowers. Perhaps he should be even harder because all of the people had top security clearance. That means, they committed a felony.

KenH , May 23, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT

Like Pat said last week, Trump needs to start going on offense. If Trump thinks he can charm the deep state by not hitting back at them then he's the wrong guy for the job.

But if and when Trump ever goes after Susan Rice and Hussein O then Mad Maxine WaWa, the DNC and the media predictably will accuse him of racism. But it wasn't racist for two black government officials to illegally wiretap Trump and his associates or decrypt their communications.

Longfisher , May 23, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

I can't help but agree with Pat on this one.

If Trump doesn't soon show his normally aggressive, combative and take no prisoners approach to life he's soon done.

More time in the oven doesn't improve upon done.

LF

Veritatis , May 23, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

"When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation."

I get the impression he just doesn't know he can do this. His advisors apparently do not either. He does not have a good understanding of the powers of his office, how to leverage it and thus cannot "execute". He has not been able to identify "a move" that will neutralize at least some key enemies, make the others pause and give him some initiative. Buchanan's advise sounds good, but there's a window of opportunity for these things.

And I cannot forget the delay of the TV stations in calling the election on the night of nov 8, and how when he came out his words were "complicated business, folks", and de facto exonerated Hillary Clinton. Some "understanding" was brokered there, and the measure of the man taken.

exiled off mainstreet , May 23, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT

Buchanan has it right again. The whole special counsel thing is another deep state initiative to eliminate Trump, as are the continual leaks. I'm also afraid that the cynical manoevrings with the Saudis is, in large part, an effort by Trump to show he can be part of the imperialist team after all despite his earlier statements critical of Saudi-financed jihadi type thugs.

But this is a futile effort. The structure will never be satisfied until they have a pliable tool of their imperialist anti-Russian pro-Jihadi line running the show. Mike Whitney has accurately described this Rosenstein-Mueller effort in his most recent counterpunch piece (not here yet but probably to appear later today on Unz.)

The early comments on this are great. I agree with English Mike's prescription of an office to link the disloyal activities of the leakers with facts necessary to prove the Seth Rich murder and its links to the wikileaks incident. I agree with the others who indicate that a stronger line must be taken with those who, in light of the indications of the Rich story which totally debunks the Russian conspiracy theory, that the situation here indicates that the power structure is engaged on full-on treason and sedition. The success of this treason would mean the final burial of the rule of law in the US and its replacement with an imperial system totally bent on absolute domination of everywhere even if the imposition of such a system requires nuclear armageddon.

englishmike , May 23, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet Buchanan has it right again. The whole special counsel thing is another deep state initiative to eliminate Trump, as are the continual leaks. I'm also afraid that the cynical manoevrings with the Saudis is, in large part, an effort by Trump to show he can be part of the imperialist team after all despite his earlier statements critical of Saudi-financed jihadi type thugs.

But this is a futile effort. The structure will never be satisfied until they have a pliable tool of their imperialist anti-Russian pro-Jihadi line running the show. Mike Whitney has accurately described this Rosenstein-Mueller effort in his most recent counterpunch piece (not here yet but probably to appear later today on Unz.)

The early comments on this are great. I agree with English Mike's prescription of an office to link the disloyal activities of the leakers with facts necessary to prove the Seth Rich murder and its links to the wikileaks incident. I agree with the others who indicate that a stronger line must be taken with those who, in light of the indications of the Rich story which totally debunks the Russian conspiracy theory, that the situation here indicates that the power structure is engaged on full-on treason and sedition. The success of this treason would mean the final burial of the rule of law in the US and its replacement with an imperial system totally bent on absolute domination of everywhere even if the imposition of such a system requires nuclear armageddon.

englishmike , May 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT

@englishmike When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

And now that it is becoming impossible to avoid the conclusion that Seth Rich was murdered for sharing over 44,000 DNC e-mails with Wikileaks (the leaks stopped when Rich died), should the office proposed by Mr Buchanan also investigate the strong possibility that the "Russian hacking" fake news story has been a deliberate, traitorous attempt to undermine a legitimately elected president of of the United States of America?

Don Bass , May 23, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT

What Trump told Lavrov had ALREADY been printed in US newspapers some months PRIOR . The Russians can read _ they can even read English! This is what Lavrov responded to question at a media conference:

LAVROV:

We read in your newspapers that the main accusations are centered on the following: allegedly, secrets were divulged regarding terrorists' ability to put "undetectable" explosives into computers, laptops, iPads and so on.

If memory serves, maybe one or two months earlier, the Trump administration instituted a laptop ban for passengers from seven Middle Eastern countries, if I am not mistaken, which was directly connected to a terrorist threat. So if you are talking about that, I don't see what the secret is.

http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/meropriyatiya_s_uchastiem_ministra/-/asset_publisher/xK1BhB2bUjd3/content/id/2761442

Ma Laoshi , May 23, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

Sorry Mr. Buchanan, I sometimes appreciate your contrarian opinions, but you don't help your case by making some kind of martyr out of Nixon. Maybe he was also bound by laws and an oath of his own, and lying to his country to prolong a pointless, genocidal, and unwinnable war was not the way to go about it. If, two generations later, Republicans still cannot take responsibility for Nixon's blatant criminality, that may explain much of the immaturity currently emanating from the White House.

Yes, Trump could go on the offensive vs the leakers. And/or, he could reach out to Bernie's voters, who got shafted by their own party, and explain how the same thing would have happened to their guy if he'd won. Or, make some space in his cabinet for people who are not Wall-Street/Pentagon crooks. Or, you know, do *anything* else useful or tell the truth about *anything* .

The evidence is that his passion lies elsewhere. His team's counterattack is focused on Wikileaks, immigrants, and Iran–parties without power in Washington. Trump's always mostly just been a different faction of the establishment, and this holds double for the people who funded him. "Locking her up" would imply a big obligation to do better himself. With Barbie Trump already pocketing Saudi cash Hillary-style, it seems we can forget about that.

bjondo , May 23, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT

PB, invite yourself to the Oval Office. Let the pres know what he can do.
Remind Trump Guantanamo still open for guests.

anon , May 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

Rosenstein- does he have the power to ask Mueller to look into the allegations ? Who gave them the power? How does he decide? What is his legal basis to appoint Mueller?

exiled off mainstreet , May 23, 2017 at 10:08 pm GMT

@Ma Laoshi Sorry Mr. Buchanan, I sometimes appreciate your contrarian opinions, but you don't help your case by making some kind of martyr out of Nixon. Maybe he was also bound by laws and an oath of his own, and lying to his country to prolong a pointless, genocidal, and unwinnable war was not the way to go about it. If, two generations later, Republicans still cannot take responsibility for Nixon's blatant criminality, that may explain much of the immaturity currently emanating from the White House.

Yes, Trump could go on the offensive vs the leakers. And/or, he could reach out to Bernie's voters, who got shafted by their own party, and explain how the same thing would have happened to their guy if he'd won. Or, make some space in his cabinet for people who are not Wall-Street/Pentagon crooks. Or, you know, do *anything* else useful or tell the truth about *anything*.

The evidence is that his passion lies elsewhere. His team's counterattack is focused on Wikileaks, immigrants, and Iran--parties without power in Washington. Trump's always mostly just been a different faction of the establishment, and this holds double for the people who funded him. "Locking her up" would imply a big obligation to do better himself. With Barbie Trump already pocketing Saudi cash Hillary-style, it seems we can forget about that.

Minnesota Mary , May 24, 2017 at 1:04 am GMT

@bjondo PB, invite yourself to the Oval Office. Let the pres know what he can do.
Remind Trump Guantanamo still open for guests.

Ma Laoshi , May 24, 2017 at 4:44 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet While I don't always agree with Buchanan on Nixon, I can remember his historical role as Nixon's adviser, and Nixon does not look as bad as he looked to me then based upon what has happened in the last 45 years. His failure was keeping the war going, but his Russian and Chinese policies were positive, and his domestic policy seems positively leftwing by modern standards. Unfortunately, Trump has not shown any gratitude towards wikileaks, perhaps as a result of the campaign against him.

I think the Seth Rich story needs to be fully investigated, and, even if the Kim Dotcom story was phony, the Rich thing looks real if based only on the reaction to it by the power structure.

MarkinLA , May 24, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

@Cyrano If the Americans let the deep state bamboozle them into removing Trump, they don't deserve to have not only a democracy, but a country as well. Who in their right mind would believe that Trump is in cahoots with the Russians? Maybe decades of (successful even if poorly constructed) propaganda has lowered the threshold of creativity needed in order for a lie to pass as truth, but this is going beyond the limits of tolerance. Not even a 5th grader would buy into this nonsense. The deep state is damaging the reputation of US in the world by trying to get away with such poorly constructed fabrications. This is an insult to all Americans. The deep state should be forced at least to come up with something more intelligent if they want to accomplish what they are aiming for - removal of Trump.

englishmike , May 24, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT

Vox Day at his "Vox Popoli" site has drawn attention to a powerful piece on Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" site about what James Comey has (allegedly) actually been doing at the FBI and how Trump is (allegedly) very much on the case. Whether or not you are convinced, it is required reading for anyone following this thread. Here's an excerpt:

If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton's personal scandal eraser at the FBI.
BUT TRUMP WON.
The Swamp and its bottom-dwelling denizens realize they are at risk from this political outsider who is not connected to the uni-party machines. Before Trump takes office, a "failsafe" plan is implemented to ruin Trump's administration and try to force him out of the Presidency. The key players committed to the plan are the democrat politicians, the RINO establishment, the media, the Obama-Clinton operatives imbedded throughout the intelligence agencies and the entire bureaucracy, and most importantly, the Obama DOJ and JAMES COMEY. The scheme is to smear Trump with Russian "connections," through a fake FBI "investigation" and more importantly, to trap him into a charge of criminal interference with the FBI. COMEY IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE SCHEME TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP.

Veritatis , May 24, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

@englishmike Vox Day at his "Vox Popoli" site has drawn attention to a powerful piece on Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" site about what James Comey has (allegedly) actually been doing at the FBI and how Trump is (allegedly) very much on the case. Whether or not you are convinced, it is required reading for anyone following this thread. Here's an excerpt:

If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton's personal scandal eraser at the FBI.

BUT TRUMP WON.

The Swamp and its bottom-dwelling denizens realize they are at risk from this political outsider who is not connected to the uni-party machines. Before Trump takes office, a "failsafe" plan is implemented to ruin Trump's administration and try to force him out of the Presidency. The key players committed to the plan are the democrat politicians, the RINO establishment, the media, the Obama-Clinton operatives imbedded throughout the intelligence agencies and the entire bureaucracy, and most importantly, the Obama DOJ and JAMES COMEY. The scheme is to smear Trump with Russian "connections," through a fake FBI "investigation" and more importantly, to trap him into a charge of criminal interference with the FBI. COMEY IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE SCHEME TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP.

[May 25, 2017] Yes, Virginia (Dare) There is a Cultural Marxism–and Its Taking Over Conservatism Inc by Paul Gottfried

Notable quotes:
"... Spencer's ..."
"... Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym - which terminates his membership , ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron ..."
"... The Closing of the American Mind ..."
"... Gay Marriage vs. goodwill ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Why John Podhoretz is Wrong on Gay Marriage ..."
"... First Things, ..."
"... The Power of Marriage ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom ..."
"... Foreign Policy, ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom ..."
"... , New York Post, ..."
May 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
Cultural Marxist commissars refusing to admit that dissidents are to be treated as fellow citizens is the crazed female professor who accosted the NPI's Richard Spencer while he was exercising at a Alexandria gym. She, recognizing him from coverage of the election campaign, started haranguing him and calling him a "Nazi."

Instead of having her ejected for this behavior, the gym's management terminated Spencer's membership. [ Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym - which terminates his membership , By Faiz Siddiqui May 21, 2017]

Back in 2011 VDARE posted a commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the "Cultural Marxist" concept. (I reluctantly accepted the term only because I couldn't think of a better one.)

As I pointed out, this ideology was very far from orthodox Marxism and was viewed by serious Marxists as a kind of bastard child. Yet many of those designated as "Cultural Marxists" still viewed themselves as classical Marxists and some still do.

Exponents of what the Frankfurt School called "critical theory"- like Herbert Marcuse , Theodor Adorno , and Erich Fromm -- were considered by orthodox Marxists to be fake or ersatz Marxists. But they did adopt orthodox Marxist-Leninist theory in key aspects:

    Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the bourgeoisie as a counterrevolutionary class. Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the world, arguably simplistically, in terms of interest groups and power relationships. Like orthodox Marxists-whose break from Victorian classical liberalism in this respect was shocking in a way that is easily overlooked after the totalitarian experience of the twentieth century-they explicitly eschewed debate in favor of reviling and if possible repressing their opponents. (This is fundamental to the Marxist method: although it claims to be "scientific" , it is in fact an a priori value system that rejects debate and its concomitant, "bourgeois science".

    Hence Political Correctness-the most prominent product of "cultural Marxism" .) Like orthodox Marxist, they supported, at least in principle, a socialist i.e. government-controlled economy. Like orthodox Marxists, they inclined, in varying degrees, toward the Communist side during the Cold War. ( Marcuse , who cheered the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, was an outright Stalinist-as I can confirm from personal knowledge as his onetime student.)

These disciples of the Frankfurt School, like Marx, were eager to replace what they defined as bourgeois society by a new social order. In this envisaged new order, humankind would experience true equality for the first time. This would be possible because, in a politically and socially reconstructed society, we would no longer be alienated from our real selves, which had been warped by the inequalities that existed until now.

But unlike authentic Marxists, Cultural Marxists have been principally opposed to the culture of bourgeois societies -- and only secondarily to their material arrangements. Homophobia , nationalism , Christianity, masculinity , and anti-Semitism have been the prime villains in the Cultural Marxist script.

This is especially true as one moves from the philosophy of the interwar German founders of the Frankfurt school, like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, to the second generation. This second generation is represented by Jürgen Habermas and most of the multicultural theorists ensconced in Western universities.

For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the crusade against capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against "prejudice" and "discrimination." They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because it will bring the working class to power, but to fight "racism," "fascism," and the other residues of the Western past.

If they can't accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags– hedge fund managers, Mark Zuckerberg etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers' state, i.e. the leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of command economies in the Soviet bloc . Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures, the obliteration of gender roles and the utter devastation of "the patriarchal family."

Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus even with Paris burning , National Review was still attacking the Right . In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a "socialist" because she "supports protectionism." Macron's actual onetime membership in the Socialist Party, and his view that there was no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [ French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron , April 24, 2017].

Conservatism Inc. goes along because these goals are partially achieved through corporate capitalists, who actively push Leftist social agendas and punish entire communities if they're insufficiently enthusiastic about gay marriage, gay scout leaders, transgendered rest rooms, sanctuary cities etc.. Wedded as it is to a clichéd defense of the "free market," the Beltway Right not only won't oppose this plutocratic agenda, but instead offers tax cuts to the wealthiest and most malevolent actors.

It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure that our so-called "conservatives" are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right. The behavior of our own captains of industry shows the rot is deep and that multiculturalism is very much part of American "liberal democratic" thinking, even informing our bogus conservatism. "Conservatism" is now defined as waging endless wars in the name of universalist values that any other generation would have called radically leftist. And Cultural Marxists themselves now define what we call "Western values"-for example, accepting homosexuality

The takeover is so complete, we might even say "Cultural Marxism" has outlived its usefulness as a label or as a description of a hostile foreign ideology. Instead, we're dealing with "conservatives," who are, in many ways, more extreme and more destructive than the Frankfurt School itself.

Many conservatives seem to believe Cultural Marxism is just a foreign eccentricity somehow smuggled into our country. Allan Bloom's " conservative " bestseller The Closing of the American Mind [ PDF ] contended that multiculturalism was just another example of "The German Connection." This is ludicrous.

Case in point: unlike Horkheimer, or my onetime teacher Herbert Marcuse, leading writers within Conservatism Inc. are sympathetic to something like gay marriage . These include:

Indeed, homosexual liberation is so central to modern conservatism that the Beltway Right's pundits urge American soldiers to impose it at bayonet point around the world. Kirchick complains we haven't pressed the Russian "thug" Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such "conservative" features of public life as gay pride parades. [ Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom , by James Kirchick, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2014]

Another frequent contributor to National Review , Jillian Kay Melchior, expressed concern that American withdrawal from Ukraine might expose that region to greater Russian control and thereby diminish rights for the transgendered. [ Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom , New York Post, October 8, 2015]

If that's how our Respectable Right reacts to social issues, then it may be ridiculous to continue denouncing the original Cultural Marxists. Our revolutionary thinking has whizzed past those iconoclastic German Jews who created the Frankfurt Institute in the 1920s and then moved their enterprise to the US in the 1930s. Blaming these long-dead intellectuals for our present aberrations may be like blaming Nazi atrocities on Latin fascists in 1920. We're better served by examining those who selectively adopted the original model to find out what really happened.

At this point we should ask not whether the Frankfurt School continues to cast a shadow over us but instead ask why are "conservatives" acquiescing to or even championing reforms more radical than anything one encounters in Adorno and Horkheimer?

Admittedly, Conservatism Inc. has drifted so far to the Left that one no longer blinks in surprise when a respected conservative journalist extolls Leon Trotsky and the Communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Yet it's still startling to see just how far left the Beltway "Right" has moved on social issues. Even more noteworthy is how unwilling the movement is to see any contradiction between this process and the claim they are "conservatives."

And let's not pretend that Conservatism Inc. is simply running a "Big Tent." Those who direct the top-down Beltway Right are eager to reach out to the Left, providing those they recruit share their belligerent interventionist foreign policy views and do nothing to offend neoconservative benefactors, while purging everything on their right .

This post-Christian, post-bourgeois consensus is now centered in the US and in affiliate Western countries and transmitted through our culture industry, educational system, Deep-State bureaucracy, and Establishment political parties.

The Beltway Right operates like front parties under the old Soviet system. Like those parties, our Establishment Right tries to "fit in" by dutifully undermining those to its the Right and slowly absorbing the social positions and heroes of the Left .

Occasionally it catches hell for not moving fast enough to the Left. But this only bolsters the image of Conservatism, Inc. as defenders of traditional America against the Left-an image that it won't lose even as it veers farther in the direction of its supposed adversary.

In short, Conservatism Inc. is not just a scam-but it's become a Cultural Marxist puppet. And the Dissident Right consists of those who can see through it.

Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America .

[May 25, 2017] International campaign is criminalizing criticism of Israel as antisemitism - The Unz Review

May 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

ReallyAJoke , May 25, 2017 at 4:58 am GMT

"Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent)"

This is laughable, the term "anti-semitism" was invented in the first place to silence criticism, this whole surprise about the broadening of the definition to include Israel is nothing.

You know what are other "shut-up" words? Racist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Sexist, etc that along with "Anti-Semitic" make up the bulk of the Capital Sins of the new Globalist Religion (of course, made by and for Jews).

I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want. It would be a crime if I infringed one's rights, which means, physical violence – but then again, physical violence alone is enough of a crime without motive, so it doesn't discriminate and doesn't need special snowflake groups and orwellian newspeech laws.

Felix Krull , May 25, 2017 at 6:10 am GMT

I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.

Brewer , May 25, 2017 at 6:54 am GMT

Antisemitism is a logical absurdity. It creates an offense that relies solely on the identity of the victim for its definition.

This is an anomaly for it can be committed against only one class of human beings, regardless of their behavior. Thus it differs from prejudice against gender or class.
In actuality, the offense referred to is fully described by the term "racism", for all practical purposes Although many Jews do not claim to be a "race", by claiming antisemitism they are self-identifying as such. Singling out a race for special treatment defines racism.

What is being proposed here is a consequence of a greater absurdity – a State that claims special status for one class of human being and that, like the World-bearing Elephants on a Turtle, is dependent on another absurdity – a chosen race. From there, it is turtles (absurdities) all the way down.

jilles dykstra , May 25, 2017 at 6:54 am GMT

The jewish identity is 'eternal innocent victim'. Therefore any criticism of jews, jewry, or the judaic religion, is antisemitism.

It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman regime...

Likewise, the present German identity is guilt about two world wars, no chance to make them understand that the great majority of Germans never wanted any war.

The USA identity is saviours of the world, that all over the world people have quite other ideas about the USA, they simply are wrong.

Terrorism by Muslims, they must be 'deradicalised', this means make them think that western atrocities against Muslims are for their own good, or caused by bad Muslims.

As John Maynard Keynes long ago already knew, ideas are the most powerful in the world, even if they have no relation with reality whatsoever.

CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, yet people all over the world believe that CO2 does great harm to us, despite the simple fact that climate changed as long as the earth exists, when humans had little influence, except when they began agriculture.

animalogic , May 25, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT

Its unbelievable. Makes the term "Örwellian" look weak. Words that come to mind are " ďnsidious", "sneaky", "fascistic", "devious", ëvil".

Ironically - sadly ? - this "new" antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.

Randal , May 25, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

International Campaign Is Criminalizing Criticism of Israel as 'Antisemitism'

Yes, this is certainly true as a matter of observable fact and personal experience, but this is merely one aspect of a much broader societal trend, exploited in this particular case by the supporters of Israel.

It is not the fact that the enemies of liberty are falsely conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism that is the problem, but the fact that they seek to define antisemitism as inherently evil and illegitimate, to ban the expression of any opinions classed as antisemitism from the public sphere, and wherever possible to criminalise it. The former would not be a problem were it not for the latter.

Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of "Anti-Racism" Movement

In the never-ending war on liberty waged by the powerful, for whom the freedom of ordinary folk to say and do things that annoy or offend them, or that threaten their position, is an eternal impertinence, the most vital front is freedom of speech. To the extent that freedom of speech is restricted, to that same extent is democracy negated. That front is also currently the most active in the war against liberty, and the attempt to separate and suppress "hate speech" is the schwerpunkt of the efforts by the enemies of liberty.

Those who call people or their opinions racist or anti-Semite or homophobic or islamophobic or whatever, and thereby seek to define their opinions as illegitimate per se, are the most dangerous enemies of liberty in the societies of the modern US sphere.

Seraphim , May 25, 2017 at 11:27 am GMT

The apposition of 'antisemitism' to any 'phobias' has a long history (it was just the list of phobias that grew overtime):

"The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism-or Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme (LICRA) in French-was established in 1927, and is opposed to intolerance, xenophobia and exclusion.

In 1927, French journalist Bernard Lecache created "The League Against Pogroms", and launched a media campaign in support of Sholom Schwartzbard who assassinated Symon Petliura on 25 May 1926 in the Latin Quarter of Paris. Schwartzbard viewed Petliura as responsible for numerous pogroms in Ukraine. After Schwartzbard's acquittal, the league evolved into LICA (Ligue internationale contre l'antisémitisme-or international league against anti-semitism). Schwartzbard was a prominent activist in this organization

The LICRA keeps fighting neonazism and Holocaust denial. This was demonstrated when it supported the Klarsfeld couple (Serge and Beate Klarsfeld), and during Klaus Barbie's trial in 1987.

In the last few years, LICRA intensified its international actions by opening sections abroad, in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Luxembourg, in Germany, in Portugal, in Quebec and more recently in Congo Brazzaville and in Austria.

Since 1999, with the arrival of president Patrick Gaubert, LICRA has extended its area of action. It now addresses social issues such as work discrimination, citizenship, and disadvantaged youth".

jacques sheete , May 25, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT

"Likewise, anti-Semitism is a universally accepted notion, but goy-hatred is not. These are just two amongst many other such 'one-way mental blocks" Friends, this is not a coincidence. This is a *system* designed to make us all stupid and gullible."

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-orlando-massacre-the-lies-the-exploitation-and-unasked-questions/

Not only stupid and gullible but malleable and controllable as well, it seems.

Svigor , May 25, 2017 at 12:25 pm GMT

This is how Jews always get themselves into trouble. They have no "off" switch on advantage-seeking. They can't not press an advantage. Someone needs to tell them that bullying people into assent isn't the same as making them forget – people do tend to remember this stuff.

The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of "antisemitism"[1] to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.

And what if, as has been the norm at a great many points in history, humanity decides to redefine "anti-semitism" as "good"?

Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent)

Not if Jews get their way, apparently. I am reminded of a (very memorable) book title: Jews and the State: the Fatal Embrace.

Second, Sharansky declared that it's antisemitic to apply a "double standard" to Israel - in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.

If it's bigotry to apply double standards (it's a double standard to limit the conversation to anti-semitism, by the way), then Jews have been the world's greatest bigots beyond living memory. This was a long piece, I hope I have time to read it all closely at some point.

DanCT , May 25, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

Criticizing Israel or Jewish organizations is a hate crime because, you see, Israel and Jews acting collectively have never and can never do anything wrong.

This follows from those purported standards of proof being textbook examples of logical fallacies and thinly veiled hate crimes themselves, requiring us to look elsewhere for the implicit justification. Jewish martyrology and absolute goodness, therefore, must become the one, supreme ontological truth before which all peoples, nation states, and religions must genuflect. Maybe Chris Smith has the courage to introduce a new preamble to the Constitution enshrining this as the ultimate law of the land.

OilcanFloyd , May 25, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

"Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition."

I pretty much wrote this piece off as soon as I read the above quote. Any non-Jew, especially white Christians in America and Europe, who doesn't at least have a prejudiced or bigoted view of Jewish organizations or power is an idiot. If Jews want less antisemitism, then they need to police their own for signs of hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption towards others, but I doubt that will happen, since the hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption seem organic to Jews in general.

Maybe if "activists" like Ms. Weir would concentrate on taking on Jewish power of all kinds, then the West could reform and Israel would be forced to reform, go extinct, or whatever. As it is, they just play a shell game with "Palestinian rights," while going full SJW on the rest of us. I don't give a damn about Israel, neocon Jews, Palestinians or leftist Jews. I care about my people and my country, and Jews of all political stripes are far more of a threat to both than Palestinians or whatever Muslims who are allowed to infiltrate will ever be.

I state everything above understanding full well that Palestinians are the victims of Jewish power and the world-wide Jewish community. Unfortunately, outside of the Israel issue, most Palestinians and Muslims side with the multicult, anti-Western, heavily Jewish (phony) left. In the end, I can't see how Jews will be able to play all the different groups against each other for their own benefit, and I don't care. I just want to be rid of Jewish influence and Jewish power.

TK , May 25, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

Jews always forget basic Newton laws: "For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction". In a long run you can not silence people, it will backfire.

Agent76 , May 25, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

Feb 24, 2017 Israeli Spying in the US: A Brief History

NOTE: This video was produced for BoilingFrogsPost com on April 11, 2012. It is being made available in its entirety here for the first time.

The knowledge that Israeli-connected companies and intelligence agents have been involved in detailed and elaborate spying operations in the US is of course nothing new. The phenomenon has been painstakingly documented over the years by numerous journalists and sources. Indeed, the documented cases of Israeli spying on their supposed ally - the self-same American government that is supplying it with $3 billion in grants each year - are nearly too numerous to document.

[May 24, 2017] Can Trump Salvage His Presidency in Syria s War by Shamus Cooke

May 24, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The political noose is tightening around Trump's neck, and he's got only one way out: war. The U.S. involvement in the Syrian war is accelerating as Trump's talons dig deeper into the conflict. If he successfully clutches his prey he stands a chance of clinging to the presidency.

The Democrats, now circling a wounded Trump, will happily feast instead on a rotting Syria: the only thing that can keep the Democrats from destroying Trump is if Trump destroys Syria.

Trump's strategy is based on how Democrats reacted after his first attack on the Syrian government onApril 6th: they paused their toothless "resistance" to celebrate his bombing. Trump, at his most dangerous, exposed the Democrats at their weakest.

Now Trump has struck the Syrian government again: on May 18th U.S. fighter jets attacked the Syrian military in Eastern Syria, from a new U.S. military base functioning inside Syrian territory controlled by the Syrian Kurds, where there are at least 1,000 U.S. active troops.

Although the U.S. media underplayed Trump's recent attack -- or ignored it completely - legendary U.K. Middle East journalist Robert Fiskexplained the significance:

" what was described by the Americans as a minor action was part of a far more important struggle between the US and the Syrian regime for control of the south-eastern frontier of Syria "

Yes, the U.S. is already at war with the Syrian government for control of Syrian territory. The U.S. war on ISIS in Syria was never about ISIS, but about gaining a foothold directly inside Syria. Many pundits dismissed Trump's initial attack on the Syrian government as "symbolic," when in fact it began a new war. The New York Times confirms the motive of Trump's war:

"Two competing coalitions that aim to defeat the Islamic State - one [Kurdish and U.S. fighters] backed by American air power, the other [the Syrian government] by Russian warplanes - are racing to the same goal."

What is this goal?

" [there is an] urgency among the competing coalitions fighting the Islamic State to be the first in southeast Syria to defeat the group [ISIS] and to occupy the power vacuum that its defeat would leave .Eastern Syria and the area around Deir al-Zour are mostly unpopulated desert, but they have Syria's modest oil reserves The area is strategically important to the United States, which wants to stabilize Iraq where it has a long-term military and political investment, and to Russia, which wants to strengthen the Syrian government's control of as much territory as possible."

In summary: the U.S. military wants to "occupy" the "power vacuum" left by ISIS, because Syrian territory is "strategically important" to the United States.

The war isn't about ISIS because the U.S. military isn't needed to defeat ISIS in Syria, since the group was doomed the day that Turkey decided to close ranks against them - by sealing their border with Syria - instead of openly supporting them as they had for several years.

Consequently, the Syrian government - with Russian and Iranian support - has no problem mopping up ISIS in Syria, and they're racing to do it first before the U.S.-Kurdish alliance claims the territory for itself.

Establishment Democrats are cheer-leadingTrump's war goals in private, which is why they're not denouncing them in public. The Democrat-friendly New York Times published a revealing op-ed entitled" A Trump Doctrine for the Middle East ?" In it the writer applauds Trump's war aims:

"Despite the controversies at home, Mr. Trump may come away with a legacy-cementing achievement: a Trump Doctrine for the Middle East it is false that American 'soft power' is the key to stabilizing the [middle east] region. Our ideals, such as promoting democracy, will work to our advantage only if we first restore order - a project that rests on American hard power [military intervention]. What's more, the use of force is not inherently counterproductive "

The article explains that Obama's "soft power" (the Syrian proxy war) failed and that Trump aims to "restore order" with "hard power" (direct military intervention).As Trump's bombs fall heavier Democrats will scramble to support a wider war that, crazily, increasingly threatens direct confrontation with Russia. The Russian government loudly denounced Trump's most recent bombing against the Syrian government, and sent more Russian troops to the region in response.

The U.S. war against ISIS in Syria has always been a pretext to undermine the Syrian and Iranian governments. Robert Fisk explains:

"Cutting Syria off from Iraq – and thus from Iran – appears to be a far more immediate operational aim of US forces in Syria than the elimination of the [ISIS] Sunni 'Caliphate' cult that Washington claims to be its principal enemy in the Middle East."

How might this "race to defeat ISIS" end? Trump's ominous trip to Saudi Arabia gives some insight into the Trump Doctrine. Trump made an enormous arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $350 billion over 10 years, and wants the Saudis to use the money to co-lead an "Arab NATO" [military alliance]. Who will this alliance be aimed against? The Trump administration made it known that Iran was the main target, and thus Syria is the appetizer.

In a separate article Robert Fisk discussed Trump's Saudi visit:

"The aim, however, is simple: to prepare the Sunni Muslims [the gulf monarchy U.S. allies and others] of the Middle East for war against the Shia Muslims [Iran, Syria, Hezbollah]. With help from Israel, of course."

This is the real reason Trump prioritized Saudi Arabia as the always-important first stop on his initial trip abroad: Trump is clearly stating his commitment to the totalitarian monarchies, who main priorities are the destruction of its regional enemies: Yemen, Syria, and Iran.

This "Arab NATO" is meant to act as a U.S. puppet army in the way that 'official' NATO does in Europe, and the African Union's "Standby Force" does in Africa, where U.S. allies share the responsibility of repressing neighbor states who defy U.S. interests, i.e. they refuse to abandon their political-economic self determination.

A U.S.-led "Arab NATO" wasn't previously impossible because the U.S. is universally hated across the Middle East, for its longstanding alliance with Israel combined with its recent annihilation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The openness in which the Gulf monarchies are trying to form this alliance shows just how distanced from and hated by their own residents, who are prevented from expressing their hatred through elections or public protest.

The Trump-led alliance is especially foreboding because U.S. allies in the region feel deeply betrayed by Obama's Middle East approach; they want concrete assurances the betrayal won't be repeated, since U.S. allies risked a lot in regime change in Syria after Obama ensured them that regime change would be a safe bet. Trump's visit means, in practice, a fresh commitment to Assad's downfall and renewed hostilities with Iran, nuclear deal be damned.

Trump's current war strategy in Syria is similar to President Bush Sr.'s experiment in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War: he used a no-fly zone in Kurdish-majority northern Iraq that de-facto partitioned the country, allowing the Kurds to take power where they remain in power today, as an important U.S. puppet. The partitioning of Iraq helped weaken the country prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion.

The Syrian Kurds are now being armed with U.S. weaponry and given similar promises as their Iraqi counterparts received, but the Syrian Kurds are rightfully nervous about their new alliance.

In their desperate fight against ISIS the Kurds have accepted an alliance with the world's military superpower: the Kurdish homeland is infested with rats and they invited a tiger to deal with the problem; but once the rats are dead the tiger will stay hungry. The Kurds also live next to another starving Tiger, the Turkish Government.

The history of the Kurds is one of constant betrayals by larger powers. And now they are pleading on the pages of The New York Times not to be betrayed again, since they see the writing on the wall:

" [President Trump] give us your word that evenafter Raqqa's liberation [in Syria] you will prevent attempts by Turkey to destroy what we've built here."

Of course Trump's "word" is meaningless (and even this he won't give publicly). The Kurds are being used as battlefield pawns in a greater game. As Trump aligns with the Kurds in Syria, he simultaneously calls the Turkish Kurds "terrorists," even though the Turkish and Syrian Kurds are closely aligned ideologically and militarily.

Like all "boots on the ground," the Kurds are most useful to the U.S. as cannon fodder, while more powerful people profit from the fighting. The political power of the Kurds pales in comparison to their enemy Turkey, whose government has long-term interests (the destruction of the Kurds) that will outlast the short-term military objectives Trump.

The above contradictions are sharpening across the Middle East, nearing the point of yet another explosion. The Trump Doctrine is a flamethrower at a gas station that can instantly spark an even greater conflagration, beyond the horrors we've already witnessed across the Middle East. If the Trump resistance movement in the United States doesn't quickly prioritize a real anti war strategy, there will be little resistance left to speak of as we descend into war.

[May 24, 2017] Fire Burn and Cauldron Bubble for Trump by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
"... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
"... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
May 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
The witches in Macbeth.

President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides. The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against Trump.

One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'

As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.

One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.

Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated. But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy for others.

Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy. Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.

But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?

The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence, end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.

By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.

No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'

That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of Trump that are beginning.

Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria, and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual Arabs!

Timur The Lame , May 21, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now. Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?

This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.

Every (real) man for himself now.

Cheers-

WorkingClass , May 21, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.

No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.

Hunsdon , May 21, 2017 at 9:22 pm GMT

Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.

Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.

Promintory Rider , May 21, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President. Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their own.

So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.

Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him. So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of town.

There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.

If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country and everyone will know that elections don't matter.

Miro23 , May 22, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT

But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.

This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue by issue basis.

If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation, or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political trouble.

"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on their electability.

If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.

balderdash , May 23, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

@WorkingClass


By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
bob balkas , May 23, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.

Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.

Eileen Kuch , May 23, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

@Miro23


But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue by issue basis.

If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation, or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political trouble.

"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on their electability.

If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.

[May 23, 2017] Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it? ..."
"... Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far. ..."
"... Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes ..."
"... Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings? ..."
"... Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries. ..."
"... Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) ..."
"... Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary. ..."
"... sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest. ..."
"... The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat. ..."
"... Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen. ..."
"... Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting. ..."
"... They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them? ..."
"... Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was. ..."
"... The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true. ..."
"... If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line. ..."
"... All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security". ..."
"... But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior? ..."
"... It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation. ..."
"... It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia. ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! ..."
"... December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security ..."
"... Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide." ..."
www.zerohedge.com

May 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?

Why?

Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?

That's a no-brainer, isn't it?

Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there's neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one's own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to do with the current investigation, it's all about politics and geopolitics.

We don't know who killed Seth Rich and we're not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?

And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the last 10 months– they've showed absolutely zero interest in Rich's death at all?

According to Fox News:

"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time .

Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News .

"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department." ("Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link", Fox News)

Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.

But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline, are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.

WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rich's murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?

I don't know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I'd sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not just because it might help in Rich's murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could actually change the course of history.

Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?

Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:

"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. .

Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.

"The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn't conclude that they both have the same source," Murray said. "In both cases we're talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information

Scott Horton then asked, "Is it fair to say that you're saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?"

"I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah," Murray responded. "In both cases they are leaks by Americans."

("A Spy Coup in America?", Robert Parry, Consortium News)

With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.

Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?

Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there's still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections? In fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof of Russian meddling. On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public's expectations. Instead of a smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook. Here's how veteran journalist Robert Parry summed it up:

"The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks .The DNI report as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word "assesses" .suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, "assesses" often means "guesses." ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'", Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Repeat: "the report contained no direct evidence", no "actual proof", and a heckuva a lot of "guessing". That's some "smoking gun", eh?

If this 'thin gruel' sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that's because it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks, mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that served their broader political agenda. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:

"On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy (but) there are compelling reasons to believe this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments to ensure this one reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for.

.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."

This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures. Hand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure. The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization .

A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA's hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over the drafting of the ICA. Given Brennan's scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA and reviewed and approved their conclusions .

The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump's presidency ."

("More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged", Fox News)

Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it?

Let's take a minute and review the main points in the article:

1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?

No, it was not. "In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed (that) the ICA reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17."

2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?

No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create consensus.

3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?

Yes, they were "handpicked from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)

4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?

No, their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me." (Clapper) This of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.

5–Were Clapper's methods "normal" by Intelligence agency standards?

Definitely not. "This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures."

6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?

Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday's Arkansas online:

"I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally - and that's the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system," said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. "I think as well our institutions are under assault internally."

When he was asked, "Internally, from the president?" Clapper said, "Exactly." (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant", arkansasonline)

Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about "the assault on our institutions.")

7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?

No, it doesn't. What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would 'kill two birds with one stone', (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there's no proof of anything. Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:

"12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:

The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein's view that the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians."
("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)

Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually "reviewed the evidence", and even they are not convinced. It just goes to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals. Isn't that what's really going on?

How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?

First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don't get the impression that he's the devoted civil servant and all-around stand-up guy he's made out to be in the media. Here's a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will help to put things into perspective:

"Five former FBI agents raised concerns about his (Comey's) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.

"These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law," the letter states.

Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey's defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and observed, "Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina." ("FBI Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention", Human Rights First)

Get the picture?

Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far.

American Thinker's Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here's what she said:

"There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes - wittingly, or unwittingly." ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)

Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings?

Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries.

Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?

Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)

American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer Raids, the FBI's blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA's watch lists, and the CIA's waterboarding. . Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"

("Security Breach– Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J. Glennon, Harper's Magazine)

"Who?"

The Democrats, that's who.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Mark Caplan , Website May 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.

Seamus Padraig , May 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.

In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.

The Alarmist , May 19, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT

As to, "Where are the journalists?" there was a classified annex to the PATRIOT that outlawed journalism. That's why you haven't seen any in the US for years. They tried to spread its reach to the world by a secret annex to FATCA, but that effort has largely been limited to the wimps in Europe.

paraglider , May 19, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest.

imo its hopeless. within a decade or two the usa is done as a superpower perhaps even a nation of the first rank. the way washington projects its power is through the us dollar as reserve currency. for now there is no substitute.

once the dollar rallies strongly in the next few years as the euro project implodes and frightened money comes here looking for safety our exports from a high dollar will make for a profoundly deflationary evironment and doom our economy and with it out ability project power.

our military is already a bit of a joke capable of only defeating the semi disarmed and poorly led. against true adversaries like russia and china the pentagon won't even attempt a confrontation knowing they can not win.

forget the internecine warfare going on in america. it is cancer cells attacking the remnants of a healthy american host and the media opinion makers are rooting for cancer to win.

watch the dollar over the next few years as it rises in value our american future will grow dimmer. by 203? it will be lights here.

Antiwar7 , May 20, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT

@Mark Caplan Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.

anonymous , May 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat.

Erebus , May 20, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT

This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)

Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen.

Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.

They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them?

Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.

That base is growing, thanks in very large part to the invisible group's damn-the-torpedoes onslaught. I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible.

And then, the gates of hell break open in America.

Corvinus , May 20, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.

In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.

jakbit , May 20, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

are you and your readers following George Webb on youtube?

Svigor , May 20, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT

Assuming this is the case, are you going to sit there and take it like an impotent chump? Or, since you are imprisoned in this cage, will you channel your inner white rage and lead the charge to rid yourself from those who control you?

Post your address, tough guy, and we'll find out.

Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.

Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was.

Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.

I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially mandatory voting: every person casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a vote for "I'll go with the majority's decision." The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this process: everyone is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.

The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the people who vote by proxy. It's Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from the party that claims to support mandatory voting!

The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will very much favored Trump over Clinton.

Erebus , May 21, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT

@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."

But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?

There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.

Svigor , May 21, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT

As this seems to be addressed to me, I'll say that I did not misunderstand either the legal-constitutional concept of the Electoral College, or its workings. I know well that Trump won the election as defined by the American Constitution. Perhaps I should have said " won the popular vote count ".

As for "I'll go with the majority's decision.", that pretty much applies to any "first past the post" electoral system.

My point is that talk of "the popular vote" should be met with derision, not entertained or repeated.

Random Guy , May 21, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

I think your all crazy there. I was born in Canada of Scottish decent, and I won't go to the States anymore. You are a military dictatorship and gun worshipers. It's like being a dutch farmer hearing about the candle-light vigils of the NAZI's from Holland mid last century. I tell my family to stay away.

Willem Hendrik , May 21, 2017 at 10:09 pm GMT

America is too important to be left to Americans. You should be proud that others take an interest.

alexander , May 22, 2017 at 7:21 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation and has never even been to DC.

polistra , May 22, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT

The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true.

If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line.

Those are the two possibilities. Neither one leads to public exposure of truth.

neutral , May 22, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security".

neutral , May 22, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT

@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."

But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?

There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.

jilles dykstra , May 22, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation.

It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia.

I still hope that Trump wants good, normal, relations with Russia, as long as I can keep this hope, Deep State will try to remove Trump one way or another, and will continue the anti Russian propaganda. Once Trump is removed, the war can begin. As Sol Bloom, a friend of Roosevelt, writes in his memoirs, 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was to prepare the USA people slowly for war'. We now can write 'the great accomplishment of CNN, Washpost and NYT, is to prepare the USA people for war against Russia'.

jilles dykstra , May 22, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

@Willem Hendrik America is too important to be left to Americans. You should be proud that others take an interest.

Anonymous White Male , May 22, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

"Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is."

I am no fan of Trump, but how can anyone make such a statement concerning someone that has only been in office for 4 months? I have noticed Whitney's writing before. He has ridiculous comments inserted in with lucid ones. I wonder if his residence in Washington State is the cause of his delusions?

Che Guava , May 22, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.

That statement is confused on so many levels. I haven't seen one convincing analysis of the recent failed coup in Turkey, but my impression is that they were Kemalists, wanting to get rid of Sultan Erdogan for very good reasons. Erdogan claims it was due to his fellow Islamist, Gulen. Point is, the coup was a massive failure, and almost certainly incited by those loyal to Erdogan, as a piece of theatre to maximise the vote for him in his referendum to assume despotic power.

He has sacked hundreds of thousands, military, judicial, and civil service, arrested tens of thousands, closed many educational institutions. None of that in the USA.

As a sympathizer with constitutionalist, freedom-loving, and oppressed USA people, it is clear that if Trump were at all sincere about his campaign promises, he needs to do a much better job of decapitating the political appointees in the civil service (unlike the victims in Turkey, no tears need be shed, they would all end up in other kinds of overly remunerated playtime).

He would do well to cut fed. money for the courses in culti-Marxi, etc., and to universities emphasizing that. Since none of that is going to happen (unfortunately) there may be another key factor. Turkey was best buddies with Israel for a long time, and almost has returned to that. They were never a colony of Israel. The USA is. Witness Prex Trump's craven obsequiousness right now (or in the last 24 hours). The tail that wags the dog, indeed.

Agent76 , May 22, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!

December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security

In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state's electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political ploy.

http://www.newstarget.com/2016-12-28-election-hacks-traced-back-to-obamas-department-of-homeland-security.html

Agent76 , May 22, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT

Jan 3, 2017 With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users

Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide."

Erebus , May 22, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation and has never even been to DC.

Che Guava , May 22, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

Must adding, another very good article from Mike Whitney.

Assange, a man of impeccable integrity?

It is Julian, not Julien.

I cannot vouch for impeccable. As a hacker, sure, no approval of the fraud types (minuscule at the time, but there). Past that slight connection at second-degree of separation, he is the media figure to me. Doesn't like to wash, so a dirty hippy. Reportedly extremely smelly. I would imagine the Ecuadorian embassy has house-trained him.

Attempts at political treatises are sub-undergraduate and pompous. Led by his penis, thus the trap in Sweden. Also done some great things, and been betrayed by MSM organisations (NYT and Guardian come to mind, in particular, the latter never shut up about the false rape charges). Now that those are over, it would be beautiful if Queen Elizabeth would grant him a pardon for his default on bail.

geokat62 , May 22, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states

That's the theory. The reality is more like:

The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 15 battleground states

or better still:

The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that have been truly competitive over the last five presidential elections

utu , May 22, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from determining the vote. Without the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would only have to cater to the major population centers and could safely ignore "flyover country", as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.

The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...

Corvinus , May 22, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

@Erebus

What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
Being neither American, nor living anywhere near it, the only dog I have in what is still an internal American struggle is that I live on the same planet. America being what it is, it's (what I believe to be) existential struggle may well spill over its borders to impact all, in some cases violently.
So, I throw the question (quite seriously) backatchya. Will the Deplorables put their money on the table, and at what point will they do that?
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait?
The swamp's ooze has permeated all of the power structures of the body politic, and its vapours much of the society. It cannot be drained in a day, and it cannot be drained without massive dislocation of both America's geo-political position, and its national cohesion. To "drain the swamp" is to manage the dissolution of a global empire while the resulting centrifugal forces work to tear the homeland apart.

I made a comment on another thread that expresses my view on America's situation. You may be interested.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/acuckalypse-now-the-budget-betrayal-and-trump-derangement-syndrome/#comment-1865244

jilles dykstra , May 22, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

The USA electoral system dates back to the time individual states were important. The GB system, the same. The French system, to the time De Gaulle wanted powers to be able to rule the country.

Generals fight the last war, just German generals in WWII had no experience in WWI, as had French genererals, so German tanks were more than twice as fast as French tanks, and the German system for fuelling tanks, jerrycans, was so much faster than the French system, tank lorries, with a waiting line, that France could be overrun.
At present in Europe we see that the election system is such that the majority in countried with high unemployment, the southern countries, those in the ages of 18 to 35 or so, are contemplating rebellion.

At the same time, the euro is the cause of the unemployment, devaluation impossible, to make the country competitive in a moment, Schäuble, a euro profiteer, is talking about 'strenghtening the euro zone'.

Politicians fight the the last fight.

Clark Westwood , May 22, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

@Erebus Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening...

Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's death in their probe into Russian election tampering.

I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017

I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017

Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, , "... (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"

Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.

Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.

[May 23, 2017] Trump Is the Symptom, Not the Disease by Chris Hedges

Pretty naive, but poignant rant
Notable quotes:
"... It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed. ..."
"... "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period... ..."
"... Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression. ..."
May 16, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Forget the firing of James Comey. Forget the paralysis in Congress. Forget the idiocy of a press that covers our descent into tyranny as if it were a sports contest between corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats or a reality show starring our maniacal president and the idiots that surround him. Forget the noise.

The crisis we face is not embodied in the public images of the politicians that run our dysfunctional government. The crisis we face is the result of a four-decade-long, slow-motion corporate coup that has rendered the citizen impotent, left us without any authentic democratic institutions and allowed corporate and military power to become omnipotent. This crisis has spawned a corrupt electoral system of legalized bribery and empowered those public figures that master the arts of entertainment and artifice. And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal , corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as Donald Trump.

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

Our descent into despotism began with the pardoning of Richard Nixon , all of whose impeachable crimes are now legal, and the extrajudicial assault, including targeted assassinations and imprisonment, carried out on dissidents and radicals, especially black radicals.

It began with the creation of corporate-funded foundations and organizations that took control of the press, the courts, the universities, scientific research and the two major political parties. It began with empowering militarized police to kill unarmed citizens and the spread of our horrendous system of mass incarceration and the death penalty. It began with the stripping away of our most basic constitutional rights-privacy, due process, habeas corpus, fair elections and dissent.

It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed.

"What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period...

... ... ...

Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression.

[May 23, 2017] Why Trumps First Trip Is Focusing on Faith

Attempt to reverse the fact that the USA invasion of Iraq strengthens Iran regional influence by forging "Sunni NATO"
May 23, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The administration has made it increasingly clear that, in addition to the goal of annihilating the Islamic State as an organized state, it will also seek to contain Iranian regional ambitions in the Middle East. This has been graphically underscored with two unprecedented air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria. The first one, in April 2017, seemingly took Syrian use of chemical weapons off the table. The second one, on May 18, 2017, targeted Syrian (and possibly Hezbollah) ground forces that threatened Syrian rebels tied to the United States and Jordan. These Syrian rebels are trying to race to the Euphrates as ISIS weakens, in a possible precursor to setting up some sort of safe, liberated zone in eastern Syria, controlled by pro-Western rebels.

A key part of this anti-ISIS, anti-Iran equation that the administration has attempted to highlight, albeit in inchoate ways to date, is that this fight has an ideological dimension that the previous administration ignored or minimized. This concern, reportedly controversial even within the White House, and which has been often crudely depicted in the media as mere "Islamophobia," actually is an avowal that men are motivated by more than economics and comfort, and that ideas and identity still have power, and need to be understood.

The second "deliverable" concerns Israel. Despite some questions on focusing on the Arab-Israeli peace process, the new administration has already sought to differentiate itself from the Obama administration in openly and aggressively standing with Israel and the Netanyahu administration, whether at the United Nations or on other issues, such as the Iranian threat. The general expectation is that, whatever the spin, this administration will be much more outspokenly pro-Israel than the previous one.

[May 23, 2017] The recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership

Notable quotes:
"... the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report. ..."
"... ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
May 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs, May 23, 2017 at 08:27 AM
If Trump goes, Pence becomes president.

Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.

In the meantime, nothing gets fixed.

Anyone who wants single-payer, better jobs, etc. should focus on the 2018 elections and work for people who can oust people like Nancy Pelosi in the primaries and Republicans in the general.

libezkova, May 23, 2017 at 08:52 AM

"Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.In the meantime, nothing gets fixed."

True. Also the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report.

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3559/A-Seth-Rich-Chronology-Part-1.aspx

Also at

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/#comment-1880788

... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"

Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.

Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z

- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017

Most recently, he tweeted:

Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

[May 23, 2017] Why America Can't Do What It Wants to Stop Assad The National Interest Blog

May 23, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
0x7be • 6 days ago US has already did what it wanted - destroyed Iraq and Lybia and prompted the spawning of ISIS. Do we really need one more try? see more 11 • Reply • Share › − + R. Arandas • 6 days ago Assad is not a saint by any means, but the West has been consistently supporting the Syrian rebels against his regime, and the civil war has only worsened and intensified in the years since. We need to stay out of the Middle East. see more 8 • Reply • Share › − + wootendw R. Arandas "Assad is not a saint..."

No, he is not a saint but he is a far more decent person than most members of Congress or any of the previous four presidents. Assad is not a dictator. He has been elected at least twice, most recently in 2014. Last April (2015) elections were held to Syria's parliament and Assad's party won a comfortable majority.

Assad is an Alawite and an ophthalmologist but his highly educated British wife is a Sunni in a country where Sunnis are in the majority. Most Sunnis in Syria support their leaders as do Christians and Assad's fellow Alawite. Both husband and wife speak multiple foreign languages and could live comfortably in many countries. They committed themselves to reforming Syria and, if they were to go into exile as the US government wants, abandoning their people, tens of thousands more Syrians would be slaughtered but the US government would blame Assad.

The West opposes Assad not because he is bad but because he is good. It truly hurts 'our' foreign policy establishment for a backward country like Syria to have a president more intelligent and more decent than our own leaders. That's why they want to destroy him. chris chuba • 4 days ago I'm glad the posters here aren't buying it. The State Dept. state had the usual weasel words 'probably' and couldn't deny that it might just be a heating system. Snow melt proves it's a crematorium? Since we have fancy infrared satellites, how about showing pictures of it operating during summertime, that would be suspicious, not snowmelt.

Ah .. but crematorium conjures up images of the Holocaust which is etched into our psyche for the information war against the Assad govt. see more

5 • Reply • Share › Comments continue after advertisement − + Dennis Boylon • 5 days ago Anti Assad proganda from US war mongers. We heard all this BS before. Nobody is buying it. I hope Assad stays in power and protects his country from the destruction seen in Iraq and Libya. see more 4 • Reply • Share › − + Paul Zx • 6 days ago Syrian war is like any other war, from atrocities against civilians to third parties involvement. Nothing new here. see more 3

[May 22, 2017] Economists View Links for 05-20-17

Notable quotes:
"... In any case Trump proved to be a very bad follower of Trump_vs_deep_state :-(. I have no further hopes for him. But still for me neocons remain the worst and the most dangerous enemies of humanity as they are open instigators of WWIII. So they still are even worse. ..."
"... Looks like Trump is not a leader and never has been one. He is a second rate showman and salesman. That's it. Looks like he already have burned every bridge and squandered every opportunity for non-interventionist policy of the USA. Saudi visit is just icing on the cake (he got a gold medal from the king who by his position is a Supreme leader of Wahhabies -- KSA official religion -- can you imagine that ? ) ..."
"... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous. And frankly chances at this point for a turn are slim to non-existent. Now Trump has all chances to became Republican Obama -- betrayer of his voters, another master of "bait and switch" maneuver. ..."
May 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs, May 21, 2017 at 08:20 PM
Trump Reaches Out to Sunni Nations, at Iran's Expense https://nyti.ms/2rHXZLi
NYT - BEN HUBBARD and THOMAS ERDBRINK - MAY 21

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - As voters in Iran danced in the streets, celebrating the landslide re-election of a moderate as president, President Trump stood in front of a gathering of leaders from across the Muslim world and called on them to isolate a nation he said had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror."

That nation was Iran.

In using the headline address of his first foreign trip as president to declare his commitment to Sunni Arab nations, Mr. Trump signaled a return to an American policy built on alliances with Arab autocrats, regardless of their human rights records or policies that sometimes undermine American interests.

At the same time, he rejected the path taken by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Mr. Obama engaged with Iran to reach a breakthrough nuclear accord, which Mr. Trump's administration has acknowledged Iran is following.

Mr. Trump has presented the shift as a reinvestment in historical alliances with friendly nations in order to fight extremism and terrorism. But the juxtaposition of the election in Iran and the gathering in Saudi Arabia seemed to highlight a reality of the Middle East that presidents have long wrestled with: how to choose partners and seek American interests in a region torn by sectarian splits and competing agendas.

Iran and its proxies have effectively found themselves on the side of the United States in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq, while in Syria, they have been adversaries in their support for the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Saudi Arabia has at times undermined the United States' efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

"We are picking one side in this geopolitical struggle, and there is very little room for gray," said Frederic Wehrey, a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Sectarianism is a byproduct of this geopolitical rivalry, and we are inadvertently picking one side in this sectarian struggle."

The two scenes - dancing in the streets in Tehran and Sunni leaders gathered in an opulent hall in Riyadh - also pointed to a complicating reality in the Middle East: There is often a disconnect between the leaders and their people.

In his remarks, Mr. Trump signaled his intention to end engagement with Iran, suggesting that it does not encourage change from inside the country.

But in Iran, many were pushing for change. Emboldened by the election results, crowds of Iranians in the capital, Tehran, demanded what they hope President Hassan Rouhani's second term will bring: the release of opposition figures, more freedom of thought and fewer restrictions on daily life.

Mr. Rouhani's supporters also expect his victory, with 57 percent of the vote, to bolster his outreach efforts to the West and the pursuit of more foreign investment to lift Iran's ailing economy.

For those who voted for Mr. Rouhani, there was a feeling of tremendous relief that his challenger, the hard-line cleric Ebrahim Raisi, who criticized the nuclear deal with the United States and other Western powers, had lost.

"Bye-bye, Raisi," the crowds chanted during the street gatherings.

"He faces a difficult task," Fazel Meybodi, a Shiite Muslim cleric from the city of Qum, said of Mr. Rouhani. "Now he must provide more freedoms, break the hard-line monopoly on the state-run radio and television, and increase freedom of press."

To achieve all that, Mr. Rouhani must persuade the hard-line-dominated judiciary and security forces to change their outlook, Mr. Meybodi said. "If he fails to deliver on at least 70 percent of those promises, his future is dark," he added.

For decades, Saudi Arabia and Iran have competed for religious leadership and political influence across the Muslim world and beyond.

Saudi Arabia, the Sunni monarchy that controls Islam's holiest sites, sees itself as the natural leader of the Muslim world and has used its lavish oil wealth to spread its austere version of the faith.

Iran, meanwhile, is the world's largest Shiite nation and is led by clerics who seek to export the ideology of political Islam that brought them to power in 1979.

Each country accuses the other of sowing instability.

Iran accuses Saudi Arabia of spreading an intolerant creed that fuels terrorism and threatens minorities. Saudi Arabia says Iran works through nonstate actors to weaken Arab nations.

In his speech on Sunday, Mr. Trump, a guest of the Saudi monarch, spoke of a stronger alliance with mostly Sunni Muslim nations to fight terrorism and extremist ideology and to push back against Iran.

"From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region," Mr. Trump told dozens of Muslim heads of state. "It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room."

That pointed to a departure from the policies of Mr. Obama, who pushed Persian Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia to move toward greater self-sufficiency in defense while pressing for the agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program.

Proponents of that approach hoped that engagement with Iran would lead to greater moderation among its leaders, paving the way for its eventual reintegration into the world system.

But the nuclear deal angered gulf nations, who felt that it rewarded Iran for bad behavior while doing nothing to constrain its destabilizing activities in Arab countries.

For them, Mr. Trump's return to America's traditional allies was a great relief.

"The most important thing is that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States is built on vision and numbers, not on slogans. They are building on shared interests," said Ghassan Charbel, the editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper. "It shows that the majority in the Arab and Islamic worlds will be close to the United States if it chooses to engage."

The Arab nations hate Iran for using nonstate actors in Arab countries. Iran was fundamental in the creation of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group and political party that now has Lebanon's strongest military force. More recently, Iran has sent military aid to help Mr. Assad fight rebels seeking his ouster, while also supporting militias in Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen.

But there is a gap between Iran's older, ruling clerics and the ambitions of its people, as was made clear when Iranians came out in force to dance and protest in the streets this weekend, breaking Islamic rules and political taboos, in celebration of Mr. Rouhani's re-election.

The election outcome was widely seen as evidence that Iran's society has changed radically. Influenced by satellite television, cheaper international travel, the internet, waves of migration to big cities and access to higher education, most of Iranian society now adheres to middle-class values.

This collided with the anti-Western ideology and strict interpretation of Islam represented by Mr. Raisi and promoted by state organizations.

Some used the election's success to criticize Mr. Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia.

"Iran - fresh from real elections - attacked by @POTUS in that bastion of democracy & moderation," Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, wrote on Twitter, speaking of Saudi Arabia.

Hamidreza Taraghi, a hard-line analyst, said of Mr. Trump, "This man just wants to sell American weapons and use Iran as an excuse."

In deepening the United States' alliance with gulf countries, Mr. Trump is bringing it closer to nations that share few cultural values with the United States and have sometimes acted against its interests. ...

libezkova - , May 21, 2017 at 09:52 PM
"In deepening the United States' alliance with gulf countries, Mr. Trump is bringing it closer to nations that share few cultural values with the United States and have sometimes acted against its interests. ..."

Being anti-war puts me in "oppressed minority" position here, but may I humbly suggest one thing: may be he is not a Russian agent like many pro-Hillary commenters here for some strange reason assume, but a closet Wahhabi stooge and a special prosecutor should be assigned for a different investigation ;-)

In any case Trump proved to be a very bad follower of Trump_vs_deep_state :-(. I have no further hopes for him. But still for me neocons remain the worst and the most dangerous enemies of humanity as they are open instigators of WWIII. So they still are even worse.

It would be nice to prosecute them all for treason (instead of this useless witch hunt for Russian agents that neocons instigated for their nefarious purposes), but as they are in power this possibility is pretty remote :-)

Looks like Trump is not a leader and never has been one. He is a second rate showman and salesman. That's it. Looks like he already have burned every bridge and squandered every opportunity for non-interventionist policy of the USA. Saudi visit is just icing on the cake (he got a gold medal from the king who by his position is a Supreme leader of Wahhabies -- KSA official religion -- can you imagine that ? )

I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous. And frankly chances at this point for a turn are slim to non-existent. Now Trump has all chances to became Republican Obama -- betrayer of his voters, another master of "bait and switch" maneuver.

That does not make neocon warmonger Hillary any better, but still to understand that we have had no choice between two equally despicable swamp creatures is depressing. Looks like 100% authentic "Back in the USSR" story.

[May 22, 2017] Manafort, Stone Give Russia Docs To Senate Intel Committee

They can dig this dirt to years. Trump is now a hostage.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation. ..."
"... NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort. ..."
May 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
While Michael Flynn may refusing to comply with the Senate Intel Committee's probe of Russian interference, two other former associates of Donald Trump complied on Monday afternoon, and according to NBC , Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee in its Russia investigation, providing "all documents consistent with their specific request." As reported previously, the committee sent document requests to Manafort and Stone, as well as Carter Page and Mike Flynn, seeking information related to dealings with Russia. So far Page has not yet complied, while Flynn it was confirmed today, planned to plead the Fifth as a reason not to comply with a committee subpoena, citing "escalating public frenzy" as part of the ongoing probe.

According to NBC, the committee's letter to Page asked him "to list any Russian official or business executive he met with between June 16, 2015 and Jan. 20, 2017. It also asked him to provide information about Russia-related real estate transactions during that period. And it seeks all his email or other communications during that period with Russians, or with the Trump campaign about Russia or Russians."

While the precise contents is unknown, similar letters were sent to Manafort and Stone, who then sent the requested information to investigators by last Friday's deadline.

"I gave them all documents that were consistent with their specific request," Stone said in an email to NBC News.

A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation.

NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort.

Meanwhile, Flynn's assertion of the Fifth Amendment would make it difficult for the Senate to enforce its subpoena, NBC News reported citing Senate sources: "The Senate could go to court, or go ask the Justice Department to go to court to enforce it, but either actin would require the Republicans who control the chamber to agree." Trump fired Flynn as his national security advisor in February after misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about U.S. sanctions on Russia.

WillyGroper , May 22, 2017 4:18 PM

if the ruskie investigation fails to unravel the deals/pay to play treason of hrc, it's a screenplay.

Honest John , May 22, 2017 4:19 PM

CNN led off their newscast saying that pleading the 5th is an admission of guilt. Only guilty people do it.

How do they get away with this stuff? And people buy into it.

dexter_morgan - Honest John , May 22, 2017 4:24 PM

Then all of Hillary's staff is guilty on the email probe stuff, they all claimed the 5th. Didn't Loretty Lynch or Holder also plead the 5th recently?

Grandad Grumps , May 22, 2017 4:31 PM

This is hilarious. Is there supposed to be some connection between meeting with Russians and rigging an election?

I am thinking that if there is to be an investigation then Congress needs to cast a wider net to include all of the past three administrations, All international banks and their legal representatives, all of Congress and everyone who has ever contributed to the DNC or RNC.

If they are going to hunt for witches, why not make it open season on ALL witches.

My personal preference is to be on friendly terms with both Russia and China ... not to mentioned Iran, people of all religions and the other countries that do not have BIS tied central banks. Why do we tolerate people telling us that we have to hate someone?

[May 22, 2017] Newt Gingrich repeats Seth Rich conspiracy theory in Fox appearance by Lois Beckett

Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
"... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
"... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
"... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the Washington Post reported . ..."
May 22, 2017 | - www.theguardian.com
Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017

A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become the focus of conspiracy theorists .

In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - - proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks.

Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington. In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - - insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the area, according to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.

"This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety, told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."

On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with " high confidence " in a public report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks, which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.

This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice".

The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family said in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".

On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.

"Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians, it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.

"He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."

Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that he did not have any evidence himself.

"Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told CNN.

The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the Washington Post reported .

[May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud. ..."
"... He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. ..."
"... Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries ..."
Apr 02, 2017 | thesaker.is
Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff The Vineyard of the Saker

Question: The traditional definition of war is "war is nothing more than an extension of state policy by alternate means." We usually understand "alternate means" as military violence and therefore claim that war always involves military action. Do you think it would be correct to say that the nature of war has changed in contemporary circumstances, that is, now the term includes measures for information, economic, political and psychological impact?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, in the West they coined the term 'hybrid war.' As a matter of fact, this is the concept they seem to be forming based on their experience. Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf.

A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud.

He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. This is just one example. But anywhere you go, when I just try talking to my Western colleagues, the White Helmets are exempt from any criticism and seem to have a monopoly on the truth. There are many other tricks like that. Certainly, in a wider perspective, cyberspace is an area where there is a material possibility to inflict potentially very serious harm. Cyber forces were created and, apparently, they have some significance. This is exactly why we need forums where these things can be discussed as a single package. The military discusses purely military issues, which now extends to cyberwars.

Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries. It is very short-sighted to impose unilateral sanctions on a country like Russia, with its huge potential, human and natural resources. By encouraging dialogue in each of these areas to build a general understanding, mutually beneficial and generally acceptable approaches, we need a forum where all these issues can be considered in their relation to each other because they all affect the general status of international relations. Except for the UN, there is no other framework like this. This is a very topical issue and we have no doubt that it will be in the centre of very heated and engaging debates for the foreseeable future.

[May 21, 2017] Do High-Level Leaks Suggest a Conspiracy by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. ..."
"... Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done "for the good of the country" and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process. ..."
"... Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest. ..."
"... "Perhaps if the man could inspire loyalty in his troops this problem would never exist." Yes–a leader must *inspire* loyalty, not demand it over dinner at the White House. ..."
May 18, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
National-security officials may see themselves as patriots, but their methods set a dangerous precedent.

Back in my time in the CIA, there were two places in the headquarters building one could go that were free speech zones-places where it was safe to vent about senior management without necessarily being admonished or even reported. They were the Historical Intelligence Collection room off the library, where no one ever went to look at the books, and the office supplies storage room in the basement. The supplies room had a lot of dark corners and concealing shelves where it was possible to be anonymous and it was completely unsupervised in the belief that true-blue CIA officers would never stoop to taking even a single pencil more than was actually needed to get the job done.

I don't know if those rooms still exist, but I sometimes think of them when the subject of government conspiracies come up. I have this vision of two or three conspirators huddled in the corner behind the staplers back in 1975 discussing how one would go about eliminating the likes of Senator Frank Church, who at that time was heading a major congressional investigation into CIA improprieties.

If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago.

Two months ago, I would have dismissed as fantasy any thoughts of a conspiracy based in America's national security agencies to bring down Donald Trump. But now I am not so sure. Many of my friends who are former intelligence officers are increasingly asking questions. It is worth pointing out that none of us are fans of what the White House has been doing and saying-quite the contrary. Still, alerting the country to concerns over what might be a developing soft coup orchestrated by the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to nullify the results of a national election in no way equates to trying to protect Donald Trump and his uncouth and ill-informed behavior. It is rather a defense of the Constitution.

Donald Trump said on Wednesday that "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!" He might be right. He was referring to Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein's appointment of the highly-respected Robert Mueller as independent counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Trump's bombast puts everyone but his most tone-deaf supporters on edge, but there are two points that he has been making repeatedly that are essential to any understanding of what is going on. First, the investigation into Russia and the Trumpsters has been a high priority at FBI and also in Congress for nearly a year. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that anyone broke any law or even that someone did something wrong. Second, and more importantly, the vilification of Trump and Russia has been driven by a series of leaks that come from the very top of the national security apparatus, leaks that appear not to have been seriously investigated.

This involvement of FBI and CIA in the campaign, whether inadvertently or by design, was particularly evident in the various reports that surfaced and were leaked to the press during the campaign and right up to the inauguration. The leaks of that type of information, to include technical intelligence and Special Access Program "codeword" material, require top-level access as well as the ability to arrange clandestine contacts with major players in the media, something far beyond the reach of most employees at CIA or the FBI.

Similar leaks have been appearing since that time. I confess to finding Monday's detailed account of what President Trump discussed with Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov, which included corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was actually shared, highly suggestive of the possibility that something like a conspiracy is, in fact, functioning. Given the really tight-security control of that transcript after it was determined that it contained sensitive information, one might reasonably assume that the leaks to the media came directly out of Donald Trump's own National Security Council or from the highest levels of the office of the DNI, CIA, or FBI.

Yesterday, the anonymous sources struck again, revealing that "Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race." That sort of information had to come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few, but even though the leaks of what constitutes highly-classified information have been recurring for many months, no one has been fired or arrested.

The emphasis on Russia derives from the government and media consensus that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers that led to the exposure of what the DNC was doing to destroy the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. There is also a related consensus that the Russian hacking was intended to damage American democracy and also to help the Trump campaign, a narrative that the president has described as a "made-up thing," a view that I share. All of these assertions are regarded as unquestionably true as measured by inside-the-beltway groupthink, with even the White House now conceding that there was Russian interference in the election.

Sometimes the hysteria over Russia produces over-the-top stories in the mainstream media, including last week's completely speculative piece wondering whether the entourage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during his White House visit. It was the type of tale that might have been inspired by a leak from someone in the National Security Council who personally observed the context of the meeting and was able to provide corroborating details.

Nevertheless, in spite of the overwhelming groupthink, it has been repeated ad nauseam by people like myself that no actual evidence has been produced to support any of the claims being made about Russia and Trump. There is more evidence that the White House was penetrated by Ankara-through the good services of Michael Flynn-than by Moscow, but Congress has not called for an investigation into Turkey's lobbying . Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even speculating that the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the DNC, leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the Russians. His concern arises from the recent WikiLeaks revelation that the CIA had developed cyberwarfare capabilities to do just that.

McGovern, like myself, is also asking why former CIA Director John Brennan has not been summoned by the Senate Committee looking into Russia-gate. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice, while former FBI Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former Justice Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan's absence is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most closely tied to the Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to fake the Russian connection, and has also been plausibly linked to "encouraging" British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael Flynn.

I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year. It is not a traditional conspiracy or cabal in that it does not meet and conspire together, but I suspect the members know what they are doing in a general sense and are intervening whenever they can to keep Trump off balance. Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done "for the good of the country" and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process.

Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as great patriots. But they must understand that the blunt instrument they are usingis far more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more threatening to our democracy than anything Donald Trump or even the Russians can do.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

  • Whine Merchant , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:20 pm
    I suggest that there are too many big egos involved to keep any 'conspiracy' quiet for long. Someone would post a status update on Facebook, with a photo tagging them all in their cloaks, brandishing daggers.
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:22 pm
    Nothing could be more obvious than that the particular anonymous high level Deep State bureaucrats and the media that quotes them are attempting a coup.

    Many of us have suspected we have been progressively disenfranchised, both economically and politically, by elite special interests for some time. If this oligarchy now get the coup they want, they will then have proven to most of us that democracy in America is a sham, no more than a cynical rigged show to deceive us that we the people are in control.

    John_M , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:38 pm
    No conspiracy is required. Trump went out of his way to antagonize the staff at CIA headquarters when he visited. We don't need to discuss how the 'Orange Blob' (As I understand he is frequently referred to within the FBI) antagonized the FBI.

    Leaks are endemic in DC. To have gone out of his way to antagonize the intelligence and security apparatus is the sign of a dangerous incompetent.

    I expect the agencies to back to their old tricks / policies with respect to senate approvals – providing useful (damaging) background information on candidates they do not approve of to political opponents in the Senate.

    But no conspiracy is required at all – just bureaucrats with information using it in what they take to be their organizational interest.

    It has been so for a long time. You get less of it with competent leadership – and more with incompetent leadership.

    Marcion , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:38 pm
    If the President hasn't done anything wrong, what does he have to hide?
    JLF , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:53 pm
    Proof? Evidence? The absence of proof is proof of nothing.
    So, smoking gun . . . or smoking pipe?
    Joe the Plutocrat , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:00 am
    fascinating stuff. which begs the question, where is the betting line or over/under for civil servants (especially those employed in the intelligence/national security space), between a sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution (via a 'conspiracy', which could also be described as a necessary and authorized 'operation'), and an a POTUS who despite his similar oath f office, lacks the capacity (legal, intellectual, emotional) ability to honor his oath? frankly, I'll take the "deep state" underdogs and the points.
    Uzback , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:37 am
    If you really are concerned that the Intelligence Agencies are leaking to damage Trump then Trump needs to take advantage of his own resources and be more open about his information to take away their power.
    1. He needs to release his tax returns. This is incredibly important, and if he is hiding something then the IC has leverage in circumstantial evidence. If there is nothing there, then they lose power.
    2. Be in full support of any investigation. Let Flynn and others from the White House speak to Congress. Again, the leaks have no power if you already release information.
    3. Instead of putting out obvious lies like Spicer did on January 21st or misdirecting information, be as open as possible on basic things. Talk to the American people like the adults they are.
    4. Stop Tweeting. Full stop. No more, it just leads to bad things.

    The leaks work because knowledge is power, and this Administration is thinking that by not giving a straight answer they can control the knowledge, which is completely not true.

    DonChi , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:14 am
    Many smart, good, fair people have such a visceral dislike of Trump that they lose their virtues and succumb to hysteria. But it's worse than that. Blindly supporting a soft coup is morally tantamount to treason.

    I know it's hard to swallow–because you hate Donald Trump so much–but it's true.

    Johnny F. Ive , says: May 19, 2017 at 6:35 am
    "Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as great patriots."

    They must be out of touch with reality. If they were patriots they would have got rid of Bush II and Cheney before the Iraq War of 2003! This is just to keep the American Empire on its present course of decline. There is no sign of anything noble going on here.

    Centralist , says: May 19, 2017 at 7:18 am
    I think the majority of the so called conspiracies are individuals or small groups operating on their own with a common goal without any active cooperation mainly because they know talking about it will lead to them facing greater problems later on.

    The majority of the leakers are likely people that honestly believe they are doing the right thing and act on it. It is not like people go into the Intelligence or Law Enforcement because they are anti-authority. They are normally men and women with a dedication to the United States and its principles so when they feel other are violating that they act. For many Trump while he is the President fails to act as such and not only that has called in to question the competency of these people and their loyalty. After having read "The Art of the Deal" I am surprised he has not tried to be more vicious to these people. Trump has a strong streak of personal loyalty and from what I gather only believes in it. The Men and Women that make up the Law Enforcement and Intelligence do not give up personal loyalty to one politician or one faction they are loyal to the United States. This is something a man who has only ever worked in family business does not seem capable to understand. His experience and training always taught him if you work for him you are suppose to be loyal to him. That is not how these organizations operate. The "deep state" is more reflective of our own polarization along party and ideologue lines. The fact an organization can people that work both sides seems crazy to many that only operate in left or right no middle. I in sad to say the longer I am alive the more I think the draft is needed not because of the need for soldiers but rather for the propose of forcing people to work in an organization that is dedicated to a common goal with individuals from all over the nation with different beliefs and experiences. Otherwise we are just going to have people that are stuck and leading to further divisions. As a note I have never served in the military my jr year of college I received an injury that disqualified me from service. I attended though one of the six senior military colleges with the intention of serving.

    John S , says: May 19, 2017 at 7:39 am
    Is this the same Philip Giraldi who has written odes to Wikileaks? Public has a right to know,etc.?
    Kurt Gayle , says: May 19, 2017 at 7:53 am
    Philip Giraldi "I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year."

    Decades-long Princeton/NYU Professor of Russian studies Stephen Cohen agrees with Mr. Giraldi's assessment (May 15, Fox):

    If you had asked me a few days ago "What's the number one threat to the United States today?" I would have said, "International terrorism." Today I would say, "It's this assault on President Trump." Because it's been going on a year. And can we be clear? What he's being accused of is treason. This has never happened in America – that there's a Russian agent in the White House. And we've had a whole array of allegations: From Putin helped him get in the White House, to his associates are doing wrong things with Russians, that Flynn did something wrong – his former National Security Advisor – did something wrong in talking to the Russian ambassador. There's no evidence that there was any wrong-doing and, indeed, Flynn should have talked to the Russian ambassador. That was his job. So, this is beyond belief now and has become – by this I mean this assault on Trump and his loyalty – this has become a national security threat to us in-itself There has long been in Washington a powerful – let's call it The Fourth Branch of Government, the intelligence services, who have opposed any rapprochement or cooperation with Russia. Remember, in 2016 President Obama worked out a deal with President Putin for military cooperation in Syria. He said he was going to share intelligence with Russia – just the way Trump and the Russians were supposed to do the other day. Our Department of Defense said it wouldn't share intelligence. And a few days later, they killed Syrian soldiers, violating the agreement, and that was the end of that. So, we can ask: "Who is making our foreign policy in Washington today?" Are there really three branches of government, or is there a fourth branch of government – these intel services? What we know as a fact is that Obama tried – not very hard, but he tried – for a military alliance with Putin in Syria against terrorism, and it was sabotaged by the Department of Defense and its allies in the intelligence services. Trump says, he said on the campaign trail: "Wouldn't it be great to cooperate with Russian?" My answer is: It would be great. And Trump seems to want that to happen. But he's being thwarted. Every time he gets close, we get a new leak, of a story.

    Chris Chuba , says: May 19, 2017 at 8:20 am
    I'm certain that everyone who launched a coup in a third world country thought they were patriots as well. The comment 'if he has nothing to hide is chilling' because it ignores the nature of these attacks. These are not really leaks, they are anonymous hit and run attacks designed to leave an impression in a way that is impossible to refute.

    Some examples
    1. CIA leak, 'portions of the Russian Dossier have been confirmed'. Perhaps some trivial facts were confirmed but people will think of the sensational parts of the dossier.

    2. Mattis flat out denies that 'methods and sources' were given to the Russians but the leaker gives specifics to the MSM. Perhaps the leaker, knowing the topic of the meeting went above and beyond knowing that the WH is not going to give out a full transcript of the meeting.

    These guys are playing a very dangerous game. This is the same CIA group that is arming rebels in Syria. They know better than us. Anyone who questions them is a traitor in their eyes.

    G Harvey , says: May 19, 2017 at 8:51 am
    The answer is: Yes.

    Paul Craig Roberts has an article up that I think should be read. As I do not know if this site allows the posting of links or even article names, I will provide neither.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 19, 2017 at 8:53 am
    Philip Giraldi "Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even speculating that the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the DNC, leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the Russians. His concern arises from the recent Wiki Leaks revelation that the CIA had developed cyber warfare capabilities to do just that. McGovern, like myself, is also asking why former CIA Director John Brennan has not been summoned by the Senate Committee looking into Russia-gate. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice, while former FBI Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former Justice Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan's absence is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most closely tied to the Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to fake the Russian connection, and has also been plausibly linked to 'encouraging' British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael Flynn."

    Brennan was chosen by Obama to head the CIA and was sworn in as Director on March 8, 2013. At the swearing-in ceremony, rather than placing his hand on a Bible, Brennan chose to place his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787. Somewhat worthy of note is the fact that the 1787 draft of the Constitution does not contain the Bill of Rights.

    But Obama White House Press spokesman Josh Earnest said Brennan requested that particular draft of the US Constitution because he "wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA"

    "Commitment to the rule of law"? Brennan?

    Vitaly , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:42 am
    The scandal in Washington, DC is profound to be explained by petty considerations. It requires metaphysical language.

    The sad fact is that We-the-People were unable to keep our Republic as Benjamin Franklin advised us to do. Founding Fathers had tried hard to protect Republic against mob. The last thing they could imagine was that mentality of instant gratification that define mob will morph into top echelon of ruling class. If history provide any lessons the first was given by Moses when he descended from Mount Sinai with 10 commandments. That lesson was repeated multiple times with the same results. History is littered with faded memories of failed empires, which reduced multidimensional colored world to lust for Golden Calf. Under no circumstances the US will be exception for signs of decay are everywhere.
    I am also sure that majority of commentators on this "conservative" site are to busy with trivia to comprehend reality they are facing in very near future.

    p3cop , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:45 am
    How is it that the leakers are not identified, fired and prosecuted? When there are five people in a room when a secret is told, and that secret gets leaked, one of those five people are guilty. If you can't tell which one, fire them all. Are there no detectives in D.C.? It ain't rocket science.
    Dan Green , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:32 am
    I think we should be reminded , as we witness this circus. Those thousands who work in the swamp, are experts at what they do. I would admit Trump needs to slack off his rhetoric, but I have to hand it to the Democrats. Getting Trump impeached or to resign is their new platform to get the ruling class back in the saddle.
    Joe the Plutocrat , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:24 am
    @Dan Green, maybe so, but the real question is, why did Americans elect a POTUS who is NOT an "expert" at what the POTUS does? Deep State, Establishment, or whatever you title you choose, one does not survive in a swamp without mastering or adapting the skills necessary to this may sound silly, survive in a swamp. This is the difference between fake news and real news. This is the difference between television and reality television. And finally, this is the difference between a true populist, and a self-described 'billionaire' populist – who inherited millions and grew it (sic) to billions via debt and bankruptcy. None of this should surprise Americans, progressive or 'deplorable'. It certainly did not surprise those sworn to defend the Constitution.
    Adriana I Pena , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:45 am
    They say that extraordinary circumstances make bad law.

    But extraordinary circumstances have to be addressed.

    A man-child with no impulse control in charge of foreign policy and they nuclear arsenal qualifies as extraordinary circumstances.

    As Cavafy said "the gods should have bothered"

    Johann , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:48 am
    The leaks are selective dirty trick mountain-out-of-molehill spoil sport partisan cry baby sore loser propaganda. If they are successful in circumventing our democracy, they and all of us will reap the whirlwind.
    bkh , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:12 pm
    I hope so! We need a good shake-up in DC to save TV ratings and sell papers. Can also add all the advertising dollars available with media clicks. And the hostility and deadlock has to continue so we can slip through some wonderful legislation to take away more wealth and rights from the dumb sheep on both sides. I am sure NetFlix or Amazon or some other Cable channel can't wait for the rights to this. "Orange is the New Nixon"

    They got it figured out to where they can get the SJWs and the left to turn out for the death of the right. They will then turn the guns on "their own" because those sheep are just as deplorable. Burn it down! Tear it apart! Show your true selves for the devils you are.

    P Tocco , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:34 pm
    Today's soft coup plotters may indeed be breaking the law. Didn't American colonial coup plotters also break the law? I.e. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, all committed hanging offenses. We are in their debt.
    Brian W , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:05 pm
    14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency

    Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China - as well as attacks in the US and South America.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/14/international-cyber-attack-roots-traced-us-national-security-agency.html

    Iron Felix , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    The US is effectively an empire, not a republic. Empires are always fighting wars to maintain and expand. Russia is viewed not as just a large influential country, but an obstacle to expansion of the empire. This is the view of the Deep State which defends the interests of the US ruling class, the finance capitalist class. It runs a worldwide imperialist system.

    Trump has no interest in empire. Sure, he will go to war against individual countries which he believes are encroaching on US interests, but he defines these interests more narrowly as the republic being cheated or taken advantage of by other states. He has no interest in sitting before a map like Halford Mackinder and moving pieces around the chess board. Trump would probably not be too interested in running off to Myanmar like Obama because it was a pawn on the geopolitical chess board.

    This is an intolerable situation for the masters of the empire. Getting rid of Trump is the solution. Pence will be the empire's servant.

    The Democrats hold contradictory views here. On the one hand, they are salivating because they believe that anyone who doesn't have Hillary Clinton's baggage they nominate for 2020 would beat Trump, so they want him wounded but still in office. Note that it was reported that some Democrats cautioned against a rush to impeachment. Pence would be a far more formidable opponent in 2020.

    The Republicans know this too. The Republican establishment would like to be rid of Trump as it considers him an albatross. They probably believe that Pence would be a stronger candidate. On the other hand, Trump is immensely popular among the Republican base. If Republican Congresspeople and Senators get on the anti-Trump bandwagon, there will be hell to pay. Trump could go around the country packing stadiums, financing primary campaigns, and maybe even run for President in 2020 as an independent or, if he is somehow disallowed because he is an impeached president, he could support a proxy. The establishment, Democrat and Republican, would be making a massive mistake underestimating Donald Trump.

    Stop the agony , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:33 pm
    This is pretty elaborate. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is typically the right one. In this case, Trump clearly treats his staff like rented mules, ritualistically ignoring their recomendations, belittling their capabilities, and throwing them under the bus whenever possible. Is it any wonder that they would leak to whomever will listen? As to the reality of the Russia conspiracy, there is a bit more evidence than Giraldi admits most glaringly in the Administration's repeated and politically inexplicable attempts to treat the Kremlin like a long and trusted ally. Also, it wasn't so much the DNC hack as the wikileaks hack that was problematic in the election. But for all that, I do agree that Flynn was clearly on the payroll of Turkey, and that he should be prosecuted accordingly. I just don't think the rest of the Administration was involved. But there is clearly more than just Flynn eating out of Putin's hand.
    Chris Chuba , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm
    It's not easy finding who leaked it because it doesn't have to be anyone who was in the room.

    The meeting transcript is archived, so who ever records the meeting, has access to the archive of the meeting, or who is in the Intel community and knows that Trump talked to the Russians about airline security could have leaked this to the press. There is also the universe of politicians if they were briefed on the meeting, but I am thinking this to be a long shot in this case.

    Brendan Sexton , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:48 pm
    Crooks and cheats always scream loudest about and direct their most intense anger at the 'squealers' who get them in trouble. (Of course it is their own behavior that gets them in trouble, really, but their egos will not allow admitting that.)

    But, any cop will tell you we would have very few successes in the justice system at all if it were not for these 'squealers." Either their direct evidence itself, or the investigative leads their information provides, make most cases, especially the cases in which there is little physical evidence.
    So it is here, with Giraldi joining in with the Trump cabal to raise a stink about the leaks and the leakers.
    Informants are very rarely seen in a positive light, even by the side using them (the cops, in my analogy), but what turns out to matter is the crime itself. In this case, maybe there is no crime–as Giraldi suggests–but to even find that out we will get there by using the info, or at least starting with the info that these leaks are providing.

    Tim D. , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:49 pm
    The U.S. isn't just governed by laws, but by norms too. Trump isn't given the benefit of the doubt not only by institutions housed within the executive branch, but by the judicial branch too. The blunt truth is people's refusal to acknowledge that Trump is unqualified for the presidency, mentally unsound, and a national security liability. What we're seeing now is how aspects of government work when confronted with such a situation.
    Robert Charron , says: May 19, 2017 at 1:57 pm
    The word "conspiracy" literally means breathing together. A conspiracy doesn't require clandestine meetings, but essentially arises from individuals "breathing" together.
    Aegis , says: May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm
    Given that Trump's administration leaks more in one day than Obama's administration leaked in eight years we must assume that the real problem here is President Trump. Perhaps if the man could inspire loyalty in his troops this problem would never exist. Obviously numerous very powerful and knowledgeable individuals are in a panic over Trump's presidency. That is not a good sign and we all should be very worried about what is really going on in the White House.
    Brendan Sexton , says: May 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm
    Aegis puts his finger on it: "Perhaps if the man could inspire loyalty in his troops this problem would never exist." Yes–a leader must *inspire* loyalty, not demand it over dinner at the White House.

    Trump inspires, at the best, nervous regard. At the worst, worse. He is not much of a leader–rather a whiner and the like. How much loyalty would YOU pledge to a petulant five-year-old?

    KennethF , says: May 19, 2017 at 3:35 pm
    Step back for a moment. Trump is a man who, after losing the popular vote by 3 million, suddenly declares there were 3 million illegal votes for Hillary. That statement is so preposterous that it is perfectly reasonable to call it insane (yet the GOP will still form a committee to look into it). He utters many such insane statements.

    Trump clearly does not understand the Constitution that he's sworn to uphold. His ignorance and ineptitude are on the public record simply by reviewing his speeches and tweets - no mainstream media required.

    Are there so-called "Deep Staters" out to get Trump for the wrong reasons? Sure. But there are so many right reasons to get rid of him that it's safe to assume that many of the leakers are Republicans who happen to love their country more than they love their party. Cheers for everyone doing their part to prove how dangerous Trump is to national security. (With luck, someone will dig up the tax returns that he's unconscionably withheld).

    As others have said, Trump's problem is of Trump's making.

    • [May 19, 2017] Removing Trump Wont Solve Americas Crisis by Robert W. Merry,

    Notable quotes:
    "... America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis. ..."
    "... Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own. ..."
    "... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
    "... "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary. ..."
    "... What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.

    What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own.

    When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem. We're talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee-a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit "good works" institution that actually was a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president, and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered Americans as "deplorables." The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.

    At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

    The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?

    So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution-and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent-a proportion unprecedented in American history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.

    And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country's civic health of questions related to assimilation-what's an appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile, we have "sanctuary cities" throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce the immigration laws-the closest we have come as a nation to "nullification" since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s, when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn't like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)

    Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.

    And, though these policies were designed to boost economic growth, they have failed to do so, as America suffered through one of the longest periods of mediocre growth in its history.

    All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers, left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope.

    And if they complain they find themselves confronting the forces of political correctness, bent on shutting them up and marginalizing them in the political arena. For all the conservative and mainstream complaints against political correctness over the years, it was never clear just how much civic frustration and anger it was generating across the country until Donald Trump unfurled his attack on the phenomenon in his campaign. Again, it was ordinary Americans against the elites.

    The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.

    When Trump, marshaling this anti-elite resentment into a powerful political wave, won the presidential election last November, it was noted that he would be a minority president in the popular vote. But then so was Nixon; so was Clinton; so was Wilson; indeed, so was Lincoln. The Trump victory constituted a political revolution.

    Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.

    Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, even suggests the elites of Washington should get rid of Trump through the use of the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president if a majority of the cabinet informs the Congress that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and if a two-thirds vote of Congress confirms that judgment in the face of a presidential challenge. This was written of course for such circumstances of presidential incapacity as ill health or injury, but Douthat's commitment to the counterrevolution is such that he would advocate its use for mere presidential incompetence.

    Consider the story of Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. No one disputes the president's right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly, it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?

    The president and his top foreign policy advisers, who were present during the conversation, say he didn't. The media and Trump's political adversaries insist that he did, at least implicitly. We don't know. But we do know that when this story reached the pages of The Washington Post , as a result of leaks from people around Trump who want to see him crushed, it led to a feeding frenzy that probably harmed American interests far more than whatever Trump may have said to those Russians. Instead of Trump's indiscretion being confined to a single conversation with foreign officials, it now is broadcast throughout the world. Instead of, at worst, a hint of where the intelligence came from, everyone now knows it came from the Israelis. Instead of being able to at least pursue a more cooperative relationship with Russia on matters of mutual interest, Trump is once again forced back on his heels on Russian policy by government officials and their media allies-who, unlike Trump, were never elected to anything.

    Thus is the Trump crisis now superimposed upon the much broader and deeper crisis of the elites, which spawned the Trump crisis in the first place. Yes, Trump is a disaster as president. He lacks nearly all the qualities and attributes a president should have, and three and a half more years of him raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult and deepening civic rancor. It could even prove to be untenable governmentally. But trying to get rid of him before his term expires, absent a clear constitutional justification and a clear assent from the collective electorate, will simply deepen the crisis, driving the wedge further into the raw American heartland and generating growing feelings that the American system has lost its legitimacy.

    There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.

    Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in September.

  • Mary Myers , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:24 pm
    If you want to know why things are as bad as they are and why Americans are so ignorant and dumbed down, get the video "Agenda" by Curtis Bower. It explains it all.
    Gregory , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm
    I agree with your diagnosis, even if the term "elite" is nebulous (aren't you, Mr. Merry, by virtue of your position as a D.C.-based journalist, an "elite"?). Anyway, Gilens and Page found as much.

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    What are some solutions?

    Chairman Moe , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
    Yeah this whole "elite" thing is kind of frustrating to hash out in good faith sometimes of course we want "elite" people in charge, in the sense that they're not illiterate imbeciles. The funny thing is how much "democracy" often fails those who are most wont to sing its praises. Those who identify as liberal tend to romanticize the idea of "the people" and their right to have a voice in our government, but then are sorely disappointed when those actual people exercise that voice in the real world. It's why most of the liberal social agenda of the past 50 years has been achieved through the courts, the least democratic institutions in our polity. "The people" wouldn't have voted for most of this stuff.
    Howard , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:38 am
    Since a lot of people are obviously having trouble with this concept: "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary.

    What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance.

    Devinicus , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:43 am
    Saying "elites are the problem" is NOT to say "let us eliminate all elites" (duh). It is instead to say "let us get ourselves different elites".

    A good elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the common good. A bad elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the good of elites alone. After deindustrialization and financialization and the Iraq War and the financial crisis and the Great Recession and the White Death combined with the ever growing wealth and power of what Richard Reeves calls the " dream hoarders ", it's pretty clear that we have bad elites.

    This is not to say that the masses are completely off the hook. A republic requires a virtuous elite AND virtuous masses. As Rod Dreher notes endlessly, the American masses aren't too virtuous nowadays, either.

    Jon S , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:48 am
    Cheap, imported labor lowers wages and improves profits. Moving manufacturing to China lowers wages and improves profits. Reducing income from savings forces people into the labor force, lowering wages and increasing profits. Labor's share of national income is at a low-point not seen since the 1920's. Corporate profitability is at an historical high point.

    I don't understand what "crisis" is being spoken of here. Isn't this exactly the scenario we have been attempting to create since Reagan? There is no crisis. This is the fruition of our conservative economic agenda. Isn't this site called "The American Conservative"?

    RRB , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm
    "Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?"

    "Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya."

    Good points. Now you may apprehend why we simple people are not so eager to react with panic to the hysteria being drummed up by the same "elite" people and institutions that melt down every time Trump walks out of his office.

    Devinicus , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:12 pm
    Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.

    They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults [5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially in NYC and DC.

    The unparalleled expansion of the (mostly white) educated professional class in the DC area over the past generation should occupy center stage in any conservative critique of the American elite.

    Howard , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote?

    Not at all. It makes them supremely desperate. The most important part of the election takes place before the first primary, when PACs and party officials determine what choices will be put before voters. Their candidates (from both parties) were likewise supremely unfit. I don't care much for either the Libertarians or Abe Lincoln, but Dead Abe Lincoln got one thing right: "Oh, hey America you just got screwed." Frankly, this has been going on for decades, but it is now reaching levels of abject absurdity.

    Michael Saber , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:29 pm
    I'm sorry, who's more elite than our golf club owning, billionaire President and his billionaires and investment bankers filled cabinet?
    KennethF , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
    What Bruce said. In addition: who could possibly be so simple-minded as to believe that the removal of Trump will magically fix government? Bottom line is, Trump is dangerously incompetent. There are no doubt some in gov't who would get rid of Trump for the wrong reasons, but there are many (too many) right reasons for doing so. Some of the so-called Deep Staters will be Republicans who understand that Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" was nothing more than an empty talking point - and more importantly, that he's a threat to national security. Getting rid of Trump would be just one step toward fixing gov't, but would be significant nonetheless.
    Donald , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:34 pm
    Actually, Bruce, some of us lefties agree with much, though not all of what Merry says. The elites in both parties have failed and if you want names one can go down a long list. On foreign policy, for instance, leaders in both parties like Clinton and McCain have consistently favored more intervention and more war. The only time Trump has been popular with the elites is when he bombed Syria.

    This post was already pretty long– if Merry had gone into detail on the financial crisis and foreign policy it would have been ten times longer.

    I despise Trump too. The problem is that many of his critics are cynical opportunists.

    Concerned Citizen , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:43 pm
    Thank your for your perspective and sanity in a time of great unrest and paranoia.
    Sandra , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm
    "So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions."

    How you view the policies on pre-existing conditions depends on whether you are looking at premiums or benefits. If you are looking at premiums then removing rules on pre-existing conditions will benefit you. If you are looking at benefits no so much. You can't say that lowering premiums doesn't help working class families. There is also a fairness issue. The pre-existing exclusion only kicks in if there has been a lapse in coverage which encourages some people to not pay into the insurance pool until they get sick. How is that fair to all the folks who paid their premiums even when they didn't avail themselves of healthcare services? The proposed plan only asks those who haven't been paying into the system to pay more to make the system more fair to those who paid all along. It doesn't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can also avoid the higher payments by making sure their coverage doesn't lapse. Yes there are those who let their coverage lapse due to a financial crisis and we do need to have programs to assist those who truly can't pay.

    John D. King , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:53 pm
    Bruce's comment is nonsense. The elites are not in the least vague and unnamed, plainly referring to the mainstream "news" media and professoriate and GOP and corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor and GOP renegades (most of them warmongers) displeased by being upstaged. He purports to want "real" solutions but is quick to condemn real limits on immigration and trade deficits and racism in the guise of affirmative action and comparable ornaments of "social justice." Then, those who resent the liberal status quo and don't share Bruce's values are child-like and paranoid.
    Such arrogant and abusive views as his scarcely deserve refutation.
    Andy Lord , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm
    "The elites" aren't the problem, using the phrase "the elites" in political debate is the problem. What elites, exactly, do NOT include Trump, the nepotistic New York billionaire whose father donated a building to get him into Wharton? "Elites" is the code word used by right wing propagandists when they're trying to induce gullible or resentful citizens into acting against their own interests. Anyone using the term is dishonest.
    Dave Poteet , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:56 pm
    If being elite means wanting a President who isn't a loose cannon and acts with some decorum and respect for the office than count me in I'm an elite.
    Wes , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm
    This was really excellent and sober. Quite a nice change.
    Mark Thomason , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:25 pm
    Trump arose from America's crisis. He is a reaction to it, not the cause.

    The crisis cause is best displayed by Hillary. She was the problem. Trump just was not the cure, even though he is the reaction we got.

    gnirol , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:26 pm
    John D. King contends: " corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor " are among the elites voters shunned when voting for Pres. Trump. Um corporate chief? Donald Trump. Eager for cheap labor? Donald Trump. Elite? Donald Trump? Sending his son to an elite school that costs as much as the school that Obama sent his daughters to? Donald Trump. The only thing about Donald Trump that isn't elite is his drunken boor (even though he doesn't drink) rhetoric and social skills which he uses to mask his elitism. If you want no more than symbolic anti-elitism, Donald Trump is your man, and that's what Donald Trump supporters seem to want: the feeling that they are superior to those whom they feel have put them down for years, instead of the skills enabling them to compete with and perhaps surpass the people they deride as elite. Meanwhile the substance of Donald Trump's life has been elitism since he was in business school about a half century ago. No reason to believe that will change, is there?
    JWJ , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm
    Bob Halvorsen wrote: "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush."

    The author wrote "minority in the popular vote". To me that means LESS than 50% of the irrelevant national popular vote total. The author is NOT saying that the presidents listed did not get the most votes in the irrelevant national popular vote, just that they received less than 50% of the total.

    Nixon 1968 – 43.4%
    Clinton 1992 – 43%
    Clinton 1996 – 49.2%
    Wilson 1912 – 41.8%
    Lincoln 1860 – 39.8%

    MM , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:28 pm
    Mueller's appointment sounds promising, all powerful politicians should be investigated if there's smoke, if not fire.

    But this discussion of elites conjures up a counter-factual President Hillary, elected President with a Democratically-controlled House, Senate, and solid 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court:

    Given her campaign's numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, along with an ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, including but not limited to the Russian uranium agreement, State Dept. pressuring Kazakhstan to sign off, after which donations were made, and Bill's speaking fees going up, other pay-to-play allegations involving some very nasty governments in Africa and the Middle East

    There would be no DOJ investigation, and no Special Counsel appointed. Even had she fired Comey herself on Day One. Impossible to prove, but none of this would be happening. And I doubt the press at large would be clamoring for investigations, because there wouldn't be any leaking going on.

    If elites are good at anything, it's circumventing the rule of law by stonewalling, or burying, all investigations into wrongdoing. The Obama DOJ excelled greatly at that sort of thing

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:38 pm
    For those of us who elected Donald Trump our President, Mr. Merry, your type of analysis is the most dangerous!

    On the one hand, you point to the root of the problems: "The elites are the problem."

    You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "[1] The hollowing out of the American working class '[2] the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind' [3] persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya [4] 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded."

    But then – having admitted that "Removing Trump Won't Solve America's Crisis" – you spout the elites' main talking point in their war to overturn the election results and to get rid of Donald Trump. You trumpet the elites' biggest lie. You say: "These people [the elites] are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job."

    You are wrong, Mr. Merry. Totally wrong! President Trump is supremely qualified, and for these reasons:

    • He was the only presidential candidate with the courage to stand up and identify the real problems that have been destroying America and

    • He was the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the elites and not to back down.

    You say, Mr. Merry, that "three and a half more years of [Trump] raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult."

    You're wrong again. The tumult is entirely necessary. In fact the tumult is inevitable because we Americans have finally elected a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems. We have finally elected a President who has the guts to stand up to the powerful elites who created these problems. We have finally elected a President who will fight for us – fight for us and not back down!

    The elites don't like what they see. They don't like Trump and they don't like us, because we put Trump in the White House.

    Those of us who elected Donald Trump President because he fights for us are willing and able to fight for him!

    What the elites do to Trump, they do to us!

    "Tumult"? Bring it on!

    San , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:41 pm
    "The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America."
    I don't agree at all with this assessment of what the "elites" want or expect.
    I believe that the strong following Bernie Sanders had–and still has– is indicative of the large numbers of Americans who find the the "status quo" a questionable way to proceed.
    This is not an endorsement of Bernie Sanders or a lamentation that he didn't get the nomination, it is just a clarification of terms of "what the elite want" i.e. you're barking up the wrong tree.
    Also not sure who you consider an elite; the whole article seems based on flimsy assumptions.
    Steve in Ohio , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    YES to what Anti Empire wrote at 10:51 am.

    I am thinking more and more that our only hope is partition. If California wants to let half of Mexico in, go for it. Just don't ask Idaho or Montana to send you water when you run out. If New England and New York want to be run by Wall Street capitalists with SJW social views, go for it. Encourage your working class and middle class people to move to the South or the Midwest and you can be just like Brazil! A nice place to vacation run by very rich people, but inhabited by mostly poor people. Another benefit of partition would be that the Ununited States would not have the size or resources to be the world's policeman. Sounds like a win for almost everybody but the neo-cons and the liberal interventionists.

    Mark , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:02 pm
    Thanks! This essay was worth the subscription price.
    EdR , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    To be honest, I don't really agree with the thesis of this article. The idea of elite as pejoratives seems out of place with the usage in other contexts and suggests we need a clearer articulation of what exactly it is we are angry about. This being said, regardless of where the problem lies, these so called "elites" have done an amazing job of turning the political machine to their advantage. We elected them – we elected Trump. I guess the thing I come back to is we need to stop seeking evidence of why we are right and start seeking evidence of why we are wrong – especially when it comes to candidates. I honestly don't know what this would look like or if it would be possible – but I feel like we need to change the way we know and evaluate candidates. It feels clear to me that the things we use as yardsticks fail us and warrants a re-imaging of how we determine fitness for public positions.
    Joe , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    19 paragraphs not a single solution. Yep, American Conservative.
    Jeremy , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:40 pm
    "Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee "

    You mean 16 million primary voters, largely women and minorities? They're hardly elites. Your whole premise falls apart here.

    MEOW , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:43 pm
    Remove Trump? No! Push him to keep his basic promises and not grovel to the warmongers and entrenched.
    Roy Fassel , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm
    The term "elite" might well mean nothing more than "educated and knowledgeable and experienced." We can see what happens when a rich person seems uneducated in world history, uneducated in our form or government and shows no leadership qualities for running a government. He is not an elite. He is a bozo. Michael Jordan was an "elite" basketball player. Do you want anything less in the top ranks of government?

    The term "elite" has a negative tone for those who do not understand how difficult issues are. As was said "I never knew how complicated health care was." And this bozo was elected.

    Avi Marranazo , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm
    The elites who have made it their business to replace the American people, with aliens who'll vote them, are the problem.
    Nelson , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:05 pm
    You can only blame the elites so much in a democracy. We elect presidents who appoint judges that say corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who work for them. We often confuse supporting our troops for supporting whatever war they're sent to. We want to cut taxes but we also want more warplanes. We spend more than any other country on healthcare and complain about costs but we reject systems other countries use that are proven more efficient. We spend much time complaining about elites but, with few exceptions, we keep electing them.
    One Man , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    we Americans have finally elected a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems"

    Like whining to the Coast Guard about how tough life is!

    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    Kurt Gayle: "You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "

    Perfectly valid reasons. Unfortunately, a perfectly wrong candidate and a perfectly wrong party to support. For most of the issues cited (excepting immigration), you'd really want a Progressive. Trump and the GOP were never going to 'clean out the swamp' (he opened the gates to the swamp), never going to try reversing the flow of wealth away from the poor & middle classes, never de-escalate military conflict, and never going to wrest control from "financialists".

    For that work, Trump is unqualified, slow to learn and has demonstrated a disquieting disinterest in actual details.

    I agree with most of the objectives you mention, but Trump was never even close to being right person for the job. Better to wash your hands of this Administration and move on.

    rhine-gold cowboy , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:21 pm
    @ Bruce

    " The term "The Deep State" being latest iteration, allowing anybody to speculate and project their own predjudices and paranoias as to these dark and unnamed forces as well comfortably allowing us each to excuse our own failures as being secretly the fault of some vague and unnamed "them"."

    Deep State theory originated in the New Left as a response to the Kennedy assassination, for instance with the works of Carl Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott, who was using the phrase "deep politics" decades ago not the only way in which the modern GOP base has started to sound like left-wingers from the old days, but one of the more surprising.

    John F LaVoy , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm
    I could pretty readily contradict some of the article's details, but I will skip that in order to agree with the basic premise. Yes, the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena signify a dissatisfaction with elitism. However, solutions not only exist, but abound. One in particular presents itself as not only advisable, but as a necessary condition: I will present only that one possibility here.

    As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.

    Absent that change, there really is no hope. We might not like it, and we might be forced to revisit principles we thought inviolate, but it is a necessary condition of restoring government of, by, and for the people.

    Cash , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:37 pm
    The problem with our elites is they do well when the rest of the country is going down the drain.

    Most of the blame attaches to Republican elites but the Dems are not immune.

    Since Reagan's election and the start of the libertarian takeover of the Republican party, America has shredded the social contract we have with one another. No more we're-in-this-together. No more we-are-our-brother's-keeper.

    Instead of decent middle class jobs with all the benefits, we've moved toward a gig economy where everyone is always hustling for the next job/client. Which the New Yorker recently called the work-until-you-die economy.

    Yes, if you're talented and lucky - the Yankees bringing you up from the minors, Paramount pictures distributing the movie you financed with credit cards, your start-up getting acquired by Microsoft - it is easier than before to become successful.

    But if you're a temporary receptionist at a law firm or driving for Uber . . .

    We've wrecked all the countervailing powers that inhibited capital from overwhelming labor. The share of US income going to capital (dividends, interest, capital gains) versus labor (paychecks) has soared.

    Unions are dead. Infrastructure and other public spending is gone. NAFTA was supposed to come with support for workers whose jobs went to Mexico but Bob Dole didn't believe in coddling losers.

    For-profit education and soaring tuition with bankruptcy law no longer permitting discharge of student load debt. How are those kids ever going to afford to buy the houses older people are counting on to finance their retirements?

    Years without increases in the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is the reference wage for most other wages. Up the minimum wage and everyone earning a paycheck will soon get a raise too.)

    That's what libertarians did to the Republican party and then to America. We stopped caring about the well-being of our fellow citizens because everything is a business deal between two self-interested parties. That's how you think on Wall Street and Silicon Valley. (And in 2008-09, when Wall Street drove the economy off a cliff, ordinary Americans bailed out the bankers.)

    But if you're an out-of-work steelworker addicted to opiates? Your bad choices are not my problem.

    The poster child for elites who no longer care about ordinary Americans is Pete Peterson of Blackstone. Remember his dog and pony show about federal govt's looming fiscal crisis? His solution was to gut entitlement spending that's probably keeping a lot of people alive.

    And here's the kicker: nothing about this fiscal crisis was so severe that a solution would require billionaires like Peterson to tighten their belts.

    Trump and Sanders picked up on the rage and despair that ordinary citizens feel for our elites and what they're doing to our country. Hillary and the rest of the Republican candidates misread the mood.

    Trump is now proposing the same old Republican agenda. Tax cuts for the rich to be financed by gutting Obamacare. More deregulation and less public spending.

    Yes, America is in crisis. Support for democratic norms is razor-thin and declining.

    This country needs to recommit to a social contract. And a social safety net. We're all in this together. The rich can't do well at the expense of everyone else if this country is to live up to our ideals.

    Back in the 1950s, the head of General Motors told a congressional hearing that he always thought that what was good for GM was good for America and what was good for America was good for GM. He got laughed at. But he was right. If he's selling cars, it means people are feeling good about their prospects.

    I'm waiting for a presidential candidate who promises that the rich are going to bear the biggest share of the burden when Americans roll up our sleeves to fix our country. He'll win in a landslide.

    Alex , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:49 pm
    Finally!
    A writer with critical thinking skills!
    PRDoucette , says: May 18, 2017 at 4:06 pm
    If wealth equals power then the only way you are going to limit the power of the elites is by massive campaign reform that would curtail the influence the wealth of the elites currently has over the political process. Neither Republicans or Democrats have shown the slightest interest in meaningful campaign reform for the simple reason that it is easier fund a campaign with millions from the elites who donate directly to a campaign and indirectly through a PAC. Without meaningful campaign reform the US will slowly but surely slip from being a democracy to an oligarchy run by the elites for the benefit of the elites. The crisis in the US is that it seems most citizens seem willing to accept that because of their wealth the elites are more likely to know how to govern. Sadly these citizens are having to learn that being a wealthy elite like Trump does not automatically mean that he knows how to govern.
    Jack Everett , says: May 18, 2017 at 4:32 pm
    I agree the problem is the elites not Trump he is to stupid and psychotic to do so much damage.
    Eric R , says: May 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm
    As a moderate lifelong Republican, I was a NeverTrumper through the primaries where my guy (Rubio) did well in my state, winning the contest. Only after Trump prevailed did I go off for a few hours on a long walk to contemplate what this meant for me, my party and my nation. I concluded that Trump was a necessary evil if we were serious about giving the 100,000,000 working men and women in this country a fair shake at the American Dream. Someone had to be ballsy enough to reconstruct the Federal Bureacracy and anyone less than a guy like Trump would wilt in the heat generated by the left leaning media and left leaning Federal Bureaucracy.

    Let's face it. Had HRC won absolutely nothing would have changed except our acceptance of corruption in our body politic. I still have hope that the Federal Government can be right-sized and the power redistributed to the United States of America not DC.

    Therein lies the fight of our time. We can either concede the fight and let DC make all the decisions (including whether to fix the pot holes on my local streets)to we can ask what each citizen can do for his or her country. It's a binary choice really. You either believe that all the power should reside with the Feds and the dictates and mandates that go with power being held 1000 miles away .or you're in favor of 95% of the decisions that impact you locally and in your state.
    If you need to find out where someone sits on this issue, ask them 2 simple questions.
    1) Who is Joe Biden?

    2) Name just 2 people from all of the following: Who's your Mayor? City Council? County Commission? School Board? State Senator? State Rep? Lt. Governor? School Board?

    Ed , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    The Trump era will be cathartic or emetic. Government operations will be so confused and erratic that people will start to think that maybe elite rule wasn't so bad and will look forward to "the grown-ups" taking over again. Of course, every new administration now claims to be "the grown-ups" reasserting themselves - that's come to be a given - but those pretensions will be taken more seriously when the next administration takes over.

    So are the elites to blame? Well, in a way. They have their agenda, and it's not always shared by ordinary Americans. But ordinary Americans don't agree with each other all that often, and depending on what the issue is, some parts of the general public are closer to the governing elites than they are to other parts of the public. It could be that elites manage to get enough support from non-elite voters to stay in office.

    But also, competence is a factor. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about elites, but much of the energy of governing elites may go into being just well-informed enough to do a half-way credible job of staying on top of events, rather than into deep-laid plans to thwart popular wishes.

    Blueshark , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm
    "All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers, left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope."

    Nice try.

    Three things led to the "hollowing out" of the American working class, and they have nothing to do with ephemeral vaporings about "divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks."

    1. Automation – and there's just no way around that – the semi-skilled and some skilled jobs giving lower-educated workers a strong middle class life are gone.

    2. "Reagan Democrats" who've been voting staunchly Republican and stood by watching and nodding while conservatives have eviscerated and vilified union jobs that also supported a middle class lifestyle (see, e.g., "right-to-work" states).

    3. Globalization (abetted by both parties) that shipped these jobs overseas – although there's no clear solution to this in an emergent 21st-century global economy.

    Look, I grew up outside of Detroit and knew families and friends who didn't go to college, but went to work on the line and could afford a middle class life. For the reasons listed above, those days are gone forever.

    Hyperion , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Devinicus

    Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.

    They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults [5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially in NYC and DC.

    Using that definition, the author of this post is an elite. But I bet he claims he is not.

    The thing is, Mr. Merry is a journalist. I'm hearing a lot about how dastardly THEY are from Trump supporters.

    Hyperion , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    John F LaVoy

    As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.

    I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone who is not rich think that money = speech? What other democracy has an election funding system as bizarre as ours?

    Andy Lord , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
    Trump's "populism" is based on the same old demagogue's standbys: xenophobia, scapegoating, racism, anti-intellectualism, economic anxiety, nationalism, and a yearning for an idealized past that never existed. The idea of Trump as some shirt-sleeved populist warrior who is going to correct the inequities of wealth distribution in the U.S. is too laughable to bother with. I would refer anyone to the two health care bills he has championed so far, which were poorly disguised attempts to enrich the wealthy even further, while robbing tens of millions of their ability to afford health insurance.
    Hexexis , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:08 pm
    Sorry, but the problem is not the "elite" but the "elitists": them that's curried favor-always monetary-w/ other elitists in exchange for donations at election time. With Clinton & Trump, we had two elitists that thought they deserved the pres'y & were propelled by the elitists running the campaigns & parties that hoped to gain from either of those two in the W.H.

    Meanwhile, the press worked feverishly to turn Clinton & Trump into viable candidates-w/ ancient, useless labels like "liberal," progressive"; "anti-establishment," "populist"-& convinced voters that they were the "best men" for the job.

    So I ended up voting for our state's Repo. gov.; who in turn voted for his own father, an 88-yr-old former congressman. That was effect elitists had on some of us.

    Brian W , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:13 pm
    April 25, 2017 Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing

    In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/

    Jeff Fine , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:47 pm
    While we may despise elites ( and just who are they?) the decision to vote for Donald Trump as a solution seems to me to be beyond stupid.
    Ellimist000 , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:00 pm
    "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise?"

    Because the author is letting his partisanship relive him of his good sense. Or he is as numerically challenged as his president, who knows?

    These people won PLURALITIES of the popular vote. So did Hillary Clinton. They all received the most votes in an election with three or more candidates but received less votes than the total that voted for some one else. Everyone on the planet besides third-world dictators and Republicans generally describe this phenomenon as "winning an election".

    A plurality is very different from getting a minority of the vote like Trump did. I am sure that Merry knows this. If you don't believe me, go ask the folks who voted Green and Libertarian who they would have voted for as a second choice if they were forced to

    TR , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
    Thank you, Nelson, at 3:05 p. m.

    And BTW, a lot of those immigrants (to whom I do not object) are here because of America's fascination with foreign wars and intrusions. Think "boat people," for example, or Iranian refugees or Cuban, etc., etc. Our stupidity produces moral obligations.

    David Naas , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:34 pm
    Contra the demos-fueled hissy-fit over "Elites", I have no problem with Elites running the world. For one thing, they (Elites) always have run the world, and that isn't going to change, except cosmetically.

    Nor do I have a problem with them reasonably rewarding themselves for their efforts.

    Experiments with direct participatory democracy have usually ended in the sort of lynch-mobbing which murdered Socrates.

    I have neither time nor interest in attending to every pettyfrogging detail of running a village government, let alone one of 300 million souls. Even with the Internet, "direct democracy" ends up being run by a few (reference Athens, if any doubt).

    The current outrage-aholic fixation over "elites" is not because they are Elites, but because they are INCOMPETENT Elites. It is said the Brits lost the Empire because they forgot how to govern, and now, it is our turn.

    Eric Hoffer told us how Elites fall back in 1950 (The True Believer), but we were so fat and happy we ignored what he said. Besides, he was a longshoreman, with no credentials. What did he know?

    My preference is for Them to fix Their problem, and to get back running affairs properly.

    Then I can focus on playing with my grandkids, flirting with my wife, and drinking beer in late afternoon with Old Blue at my feet.

    Selah!

    CascadeJoe , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:30 am
    Well, he talks and tweets a lot. But NAFTA is still in force (he learned of downsides of ash canning it), Iran sanctions have not been increased (maybe he thought of jobs related to jet sales important), he is talking with Russia (as opposed to talking about it), and has let all know about his aversion to gassing civilians.

    Let us continue to observe what he does, not what he tweets. I plan to come back in late July and take a look, 100 days just is too short to come to a decision.

    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:30 am
    Well, at least it wouldn't be a step backwards.
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:33 am
    So true. Another of the few sane voices, with intellectual heft to match that sobriety. Wish Rod Dreher would read and be convinced by your salient analysis, even if against his will. I think too many conservatives genuflect to established hierarchy, whatever its faults, out of a character that is disposed to distrust change, even needed change. I myself do not buy into the reasoning, "better the devil we know." I really think only the relatively well off can sustain such a view, whether in Manhattan or connected to it via the internet in Baton Rouge. The rest of us are too desperate.

    The elites truly are the problem. Just like those who blame Russia, they won't take ownership. They will need one heckuva Homeland Security and clampdown on the population they view as intolerable, once they have their coup against democracy. It is certain to be a pyrrhic victory though, as no elites in history ever gave up their power willingly or peacefully, yet in every case they were forcibly removed in paroxysms of violence by angry mobs of citizens who lost faith in a rigged system that would not allow needed peaceful change.

    Sad!

    RomanCandle , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:45 am
    VERY well said.
    Patricus , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:58 am
    So Trump lacks all the qualities and attributes of a proper President. What exactly are those qualities beyond getting elected? Who are the great examples Trump should imitate? Let's see, the community organizer? The son of a Bush? The man from Hope? Poppy Bush? I am one who admired Reagan but he did run up the debt. The quality these people share is a ludicrous vanity. Can't understand the notion that Trump is far below the rest of these flawed human beings. He seems to be just another one. What the heck, he might turn out to be effective. It is way too early to know.
    Mark Christensen , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:43 am
    Very true. The elites want to turf Trump because he is jeopardising a model that sustains their salaries and prestige, yet of course they can still not offer an alternative to what was there before.

    The elites can't look outside the system, to something beyond the system, because that is, by definition, something they can't control or make false promises about. The deeper problem is they are unwilling to even have this conversation, for fear it would lead to a logical conclusion about the inadequacies of power.

    Rosita , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:58 am
    What a bore and a canard; Trump_vs_deep_state has shown itself in capable of competent and capable public policy; quick on the trigger to tear everything down but in coherent and undisciplined to build anything of consequence to replace it. I'll take the elites any day over nihilism and petulance. Trump is the mirror image of his voters and it gives me great satisfaction to see their political fortunes grind to dust Over their own incompetence.
    Weldon , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:12 am
    Meh. People keep screaming about a "crisis" but aren't able to actually point to one. The economy is doing well. Crime is at historic lows. There are so few actual problems that people are taking to manufacturing them (e.g. opioids).

    I think the real issue here is that the politically-powerful Baby Boom is approaching the final years of its narcissistic, navel-gazing existence, and assumes the entire world disappears when they do.

    Frank , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:14 am
    When in the history of mankind were they not?
    Chris in Appalachia , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:56 am
    This article does a good job stitching together much of the Elites' sins. It is apparent to me that the American government can't be reformed from within by electing reform candidates. If reform is possible, it can't come from the Northeast and West Coast. It will never come from a Harvard, or any other Ivy League school, graduate. It won't come from a Boston Catholic person or New York Jewish-American. It won't come from a Baby Boomer who wishes to continue to prop up the social changes they ushered in the 60s and 70s. I would expect actual reform to come from a young person in the American Heartland, which the bi-coastal elites deride as "Flyover Country." Wasn't it the "Rust Belt" who showed us the way in the 2016 election? And if and when reform (i.e. the non-violent neutering of the Elites' power abuses) comes, the reformers had better be prepared with a total package and not just one candidate. It may be a one-time opportunity, and must be executed with the utmost strategy and determination.
    Paul Roche , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:26 am
    But We Trump supporters are quite happy with his actions so far. We know the press is rigged against him. It is distressing to see the elitist Republicans attack him too though. You are right about the divide, but this may be our last best hope of taking the government back
    AleaJactaEst , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:39 am
    if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote? Startling hubris if you ask me.
    C. L. H. Daniels , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:49 am
    Who's ready to storm the Bastille? Torches, get your torches right here!
    RRDRRD , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:49 am
    Basically agree with the author;s position but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, stop calling elitists, elites. They are not "superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities" in fact, they are frequently inferior.
    Paul Grenier , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:50 am
    When Sen. Schumer announced, on MSNBC, that a president going against the CIA is 'stupid' because 'they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you,' doesn't that scream 'crisis' from the rooftops? Since when does America, allegedly a democratic republic, assume elected presidents are the subordinates of the CIA? Well, de facto, probably for many years, but to actually openly approve of it?

    But there was no even discussion of his statement! It set off no alarm bells, no demands for reigning in the CIA ('the intelligence "community"'). Why not? Presumably because the short-term interests of too many elites aligned in this case with that of the deep state. The habit of 'whatever works for me, for the moment' won out, once again, further degrading the political culture right at its institutional heart.

    And also because Schumer is right. It isn't smart to criticize the CIA It wouldn't be good for your career, you know what I mean? ('What are ya, a Russian commie or something?').

    Merry is absolutely right. Removing Trump does nothing. It does less than nothing. It drives the disease even further into the body politic. The only solution is honesty and courage. Can we muster it?

    Linen42 , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:00 am
    So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions.

    Say what you will about Obama and his
    looking down on the people", but take him on his actions and he has done more to help the lower class through legislation and executive orders than any other president in the past 30 years.

    But wait, he didn't do anything about immigration. So therefore ignore all the laws, ignore the rules changed, just focus on the revamped Know Nothings afraid of 3% of the population.

    Brian W , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:08 am
    Yes indeed so and a very good article.

    May 7, 2017 It Wasn't Russia, How Erdogan Bought Trump and His Neocon Gangsters, the Kosher Nostra

    Learn who Mike Flynn and Rudy Giuliani really work for and why they are stabbing America in the back while Trump smiles.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/05/07/it-wasnt-russia-how-erdogan-bought-trump-and-his-neocon-gangsters-the-kosher-nostra/

    John Gruskos , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:10 am
    Principled opposition to President Trump's character is limited to this magazine and a tiny handful of like minded pundits and politicians.

    If Trump had run on Hillary Clinton's platform, and if he were ruling in accordance with that platform, waging a war for regime change in Syria, signing TPP or some equivalent, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and greatly increasing the number of legal immigrants, the Democrats and neocons would be praising him to the skies and supporting him to the hilt.

    If, on the other hand, someone other than Trump, Pat Buchanan for instance, had been elected on Trump's platform, the Democrats and neocons would be attacking him with all the hysterical venom they are now hurling at Trump (remember the brief deranged hysteria that followed Buchanan's 1996 primary win in New Hampshire?) – and I suspect some of those who pass for principled critics of Trump's character would be caught up in this hypothetical anti-Buchanan hysteria, because of their sheer weak-willed yearning for social acceptance.

    Howard , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:24 am
    If you want to really be serious about "fitness to lead", it has been a very long time since the USA has had a president who was fit to lead.

    The fact is, though, that the first rumblings of "impeachment" started before the Electoral College even met, back while Democrats were still hoping to nullify what happened on election night through the Electoral College.

    The whole Russian angle is simply a pretext. No one is saying that Russia hacked into the voting machines and added or subtracted votes; at most they are accused of having done the kind of thing investigative journalists are praised for having done. When, in the midst of the American election, British parliamentarians discussed banning Trump from the UK, **THAT** was much more serious and overt tampering with our election, yet no one cares about that, because the UK is the land of Peter Pan and Mary Poppins, whereas Russia is the bogeyman. Thus we see headlines about Russian jets "buzzing" the coast of Alaska, only to read further down that by "buzzing" we mean they were 20+ miles into international airspace. Apparently it's an outrage that they should come within a thousand miles of American airspace. American spy planes in the Black Sea are a different story: after all, they remained in international air space the whole time!

    It is dangerous to cast Russia unnecessarily in the role of villain, but it is even more dangerous to engineer even the softest of coups. Once that is done, there is no going back. Very likely there would be widespread protests, many of them violent, and a large portion of the public would see the de facto government as not merely corrupt and foolish, but completely invalid. The "authorities" would probably be able to crush dissent, but only by going full-on Stalin. What happens after that, who knows, but this story would not have any happy ending.

    Steve Norton , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:24 am
    As usual, Merry's insights are useful and informed.However, Clinton, warts and all, would have more likely eased the pain of many Americans. Her campaign focused too much on aggrieved minorities and not enough on the pain shared by all but her policies would have more likely checked the manic redistribution of wealth from middle class to elite, ended the health care impasse that cruelly toys with people, made education more accessible and enhanced investments in science and technology that could create jobs in the coming years. With regard to immigration, it is true that adding so many immigrants to the population at a time when decent-paying jobs were being eliminated through technology created a bad optic but the ban or removal of millions of immigrants would not really restore middle class stability. Elites in both parties have made mistakes and been entirely too attentive to those who give the most money but let's not legitimize Trump's mixture of exploiting anger with false promises and pushing policies that will make the plight of working people even more desperate. Clinton might not have shaken up an elitist system she helped create but she would not have shaken our democratic institutions and attacked an already fragile polity the way Trump has and will continue to do for another 3 and half years. Like it or not, elites and disenfranchised will eventually have to work together and Trump has set back this inevitable and urgent collaboration years, if not forever.
    Bob Halvorsen , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:30 am
    Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush.
    Michael Powe , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:38 am
    A self-described "publishing executive" who writes magazine/blog articles for a living is a member of the "elite"! Condemned out of his own mouth. By his own vanity, perhaps.

    And the case is hardly made by deliberately misstating facts.

    65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Is that 65 million "elites," or 65 million "dupes" too stupid to "see through her"? 65 million irresponsible citizens? Are these 65 million the real "deplorables"?

    I don't expect to see any mea culpa statements from the numerous conservative writers and talking heads who made excuses for Trump's selection as candidate prior to the election. Many of those excuses were promulgated through TAC. But a look in the mirror, and a conversation with that "still, small voice" could be therapeutic for many of you.

    Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democratic Party, not the 65 million "deplorables," were responsible for conservatives' decision to go with a manifestly unsuitable candidate. Once again, those declaiming most loudly about "personal responsibility" - lack it.

    mightywhig , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:46 am
    Good piece. Clearly the many leakers aren't concerned about national security consequences. This is only about bringing down Trump. After all, the journalist establishment extolled Snowden for leaking tons of classified information. Trump might help himself by being a little more "political," and learning to fight the right battles.
    SJB , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    I hope your article gains a large readership that includes the nevertrump cadre. It is probably a pipe dream to hope they would wake up and become aware of how they and their preference for Hillary look to many of the 63 million people who voted for Trump. They knew he was inexperienced, coarse, and a mixed bag. They also know he's only been in office for 4 months and the obstruction, malicious leaks, and malignant hatred of Trump began long before he took office.

    Too many in the nevertrump cadre come off as self-righteous, smug Pharisees for whom conservatism has become a religion. For some reason, they think their own character, knowledge, and judgement is impeccable with no room for correction by 63 million voters. The vox populi needs the elites to override them. Such hubris. We are well aware that they would rather have had a Hillary presidency. Are they any more mature than the Left in dealing with defeat? Apparently not.

    Glenn Reynolds (professor of law) sums up the situation this way: "The childish response of Democrats - and 'NeverTrump' Republicans - to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do." It would behoove the nevertrumpers to consider what they are sowing and reaping. Has their hatred of Trump and smug self-righteousness made them deaf, dumb, and blind?

    I think Victor Davis Hanson's article (see link below) has articulated the situation best and is best read as a whole instead of excerpted. The National Review's readership fell greatly prior to the election because of the nevertrumpers pomposity, but not the readership of VDH's articles at the NRO. Perhaps instead of silently disagreeing, the vox populi need to intervene and impeach the nevertrumpers.

    The Nightmares and the Realities of Never Trump
    http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/17/nightmares-realities-never-trump/

    Trucker46 , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    You elected a chump over all the obvious reasons not to, and he iS going to go before the end of the summer, either for the reasons already in.front of us or for the new ones he will give us in.the next 60 days. Get your stupid saves out of the way now and allow the republic to recover.

    Btw the "you elected" phrase above is predicated on.the idea that the chump really won.the election, Cuz it's quite clear he may not have.

    Marianna Landrum , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    The problem is not the elite, but a POTUS who is ignorant and arrogant,who is unqualified and inept and who is a man-child trying to be a leader. He makes his own issues by opening his mouth and saying stupid things and insisting they are true, and doing stupid things and insisting they are good. It is obvious he has no plan for anything and doesn't understand much of what is going on around him. He never talks about anything of substance; on health care, Price had to deal with details, and with the tax plan, it was Cohn who revealed that amazing one page initiative. When he does talk, he stupidly gives intel to our enemies. Trump is an idiot with a pen and that is the problem and it is a problem for this country.
    connecticut farmer , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:56 am
    Excellent article. Can it be possible that the meritocratic oligarchy which runs this country still doesn't "get it?" Do they really believe that getting rid of Trump solves the problem? Can it be possible that they still can't see that absent proof of actual malfeasance, driving Trump out of office could make things even worse, as if things aren't bad already.

    As the days and weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is–yes.

    Tom , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:57 am
    This is, far and away, the best summary of our current situation I have read anywhere. Outstanding!

    One area around immigration could, however, be improved to truly capture why there is so much anger at the elites. On immigration, the article states: "Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. "

    While true, this still misses the main point. The point is that the nation has existing laws to control immigration. Because the elites could not change the law through the democratic process, they opted instead to just ignore the laws, with absolutely no consequences except for those who live in the communities impacted.

    In this context, the significance of the Clinton email scandal was magnified as it represented, again, the elites clearly violating the law with no consequences.

    The lawlessness aspect is a critical point that needs to be emphasized. The elite backlash is not just about policy disagreements, its about a class of people (elites) violating/ignoring the law for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The very fact that this could happen exposes how broken the system really is.

    Trucker46 , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:05 am
    And btw.. Tho the author here is a smart and good writer, this whole "elites" thing is a stupid argument.I agree that we democrats were too cowardly to nominate Bernie, whose whole message and absolute unlikelihood was most aligned with the spirit of the times. As a party we thought small and thus became small. But Hillary was so vastly superior to any of the republican candidates that the problem has nothing to do with right wing elites and everything to do with that large swath of the right wing which simply is deplorable. They are deplorable and they deserve to know that the nation as a whole knows them to.be such. There wzz a time when they knew their place– way down a hole with the boot of the nation s conscience firmly on.the top of their head. The right let them emerge from.that hole during the advent of the tea party Cuz it liked the fact that those losers were giving their movement breadth and energy.

    But don't think for a minute that those millions of prejudiced, disgusting people have been redeemed by the chumps supposed victory, they haven't. Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called them.such, idk, but the fact of their existence being a cancer in.the republic is as correct today as it was 400 years ago and in.every generation.to.follow.

    Michael , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 am
    With the absolute control the elites have upon the military industrial complex, the traditional media outlets, the bureaucratic "three-letter" departments of governance, as well as the powerful influence over both the judicial and legislative branches of the governmnet, it seems impossible to me that such a group could be thrown off by its citizenry by violent uprising or otherwise. Just watch some of the video of Chaffets lead intelligence committee trying to access information regarding the Clinton servers and you will begin to see the incredible scope of the problem we face in America and the world today. Just as it was God that delivered a rag-tag band of America patriots from the hands of elite-based tyranny at the founding of our country, it will take an act of God to remove the chains and shackles of the Deep State from off the necks of the American people. Unfortunately a growing number of Americans are turning their back on the only real chance of deliverance we have – He who delivered the Hebrews from the Egyptian elites can delver us also.
    BillCarson , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 am
    I am more than willing to fight the elites in the streets if necessary to stop them from forcing A duly elected president from office
    Don Wiley , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:18 am
    In the day when we received our news of national and international goings on via newspapers, there was a space for reflection and contemplation, and even some semblance of reasoned debate.

    That ship has sailed, never to return and we are in the day of "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

    It used to take some time and effort to form a proper mob.

    Xenon , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:31 am
    What defines this shadowy type – "elite?" Educated? Financially well off? Aren't you an elite? Or does it only apply to liberals and Democrats? How would you define yourself?
    SJB , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:31 am
    Apologies for a poorly written comment. The vox populi is a reference to a Douthat tweet: "7. But what, in the end, are elites for? What justifies their existence? Some sort of wisdom that the vox populi can lack." Douthat's article, his tweet storm, and the lack of strong repudiation from the nevertrump cadre pretty much ended my patience with all of them. It has become almost impossible to tell the difference between the hysterical Left and the outraged nevertrump cadre. This last week has been such a delightful display of how the media, establishment elites, and nevertrumpers feel about those 63 million unredeemable deplorable Americans who voted for Trump. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
    No to neos , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:35 am
    I agree with this. I voted for Trump and told my wife several times before voting, "I don't think Trump will be a good president. I'm voting for him to send a "f- you" to the elites who run this country.

    When I say elites, I don't mean only the high and mighty. In my hometown, where I have lived all my life, our city council has handed millions of tax dollars to the region's largest car dealer to expand yet again. They pledged $1 million to lure a Hobby Lobby even though it is in direct competition with a Michael's store that has been here for years. They bought property for $1 million, knocked down the building on it, prepared the site for development, then "sold" it to a developer for $10.

    That kind of favoritism has been running wild in my little town - a little town controlled entirely by people who call themselves Republicans.

    jdl51 , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:36 am
    "When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem."

    The problem is the industrialized disinformation machine that continues to spew hatred and lies. One side thinks it's the liberal media, and the other side thinks it's RW talk radio and Fox News. It's easy to figure out which one is the real problem. There are facts and there are internet rumors that are passed off as facts. Both can't be true. And even in the face of clear evidence, primarily one side continues to believe the rumors and lies. Can't argue with delusion.

    Bob K. , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:45 am
    Thank you, Mr. Merry,

    I have been waiting for you to step up to the plate since you took over as editor of "The American Conservative" and you have delivered!

    Anti-Empire , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:51 am
    This article makes some good points. Trump was elected fair and square and the case against him is straight out of fantasy land.
    BUT then there is the snotty rhetoric that Trump is "uncouth," the same sort of rhetoric employed by the elite New York Times.
    Frankly I do not care about Trump's table manners. I do care that he has sought detente 2.0 with Russia and has killed off the TPP, not only a lousy trade deal but also the economic limb of Hillary's military/economic assault (aka pivot) to China.
    So I dismiss charges that Trump is "unfit" or "lacks nearly all the characteristics or attributes that a president should have.". And I have little confidence in a writer who looks at things in such an arrogant way. That he is the new editor of The American Conservative is enough to make me reconsider the contributions I make to this journal. Pat Buchanan and Bill Kauffman, yes. Merry? I wonder.
    Sandra , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:54 am
    I don't think the abundance of evidence that members of the Trump team met with Russian officials during the campaign can be called "minor infractions against the president". These are certainly serious allegations. It was clear early in the Trump presidency that he was not surrounding himself with people capable of carrying out the vision he articulated in his campaign for restoring America's middle class. He made many picks from the ranks of the elites including his Vice President and Attorney General. His selection seemed to favor loyalty rather than building a team that could make the changes he campaigned on. His Treasury pick is straight from Wall Street and his foreign policy team is praised by the elites. Donald Trump is not the agent for change. You can't differentiate him from the elites because he surrounded himself with them.
    Vince Hill , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:01 am
    What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words.
    Anne M Erskine , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:04 am
    Written by a Never-Trump, this article is absolute BS concerning the fact that President Trump is "unfit" for the office of the presidency. The article is, however, absolutely correct about the elites who have thrown their middle finger in the face of WE THE PEOPLE of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC of the USA, but WE THE PEOPLE elected President Trump to drain the swamp and he will. The true enemy of the USA is the elected class in D.C. and their cronies like Buffet, Steyer, Gates and the Soros Democrat Marxist Party and the utter traitorous actions by Obama. President Trump has to rid us of all Obamaites and has to slam the RINO traitors to the ground. President Trump is perfectly fit to be president and certainly more so than some community organizer who hates the USA and works to destroy her. Merry's hatred of President trump is boundless and shows him to be among the elites of the "media," a terrible curse on the USA. Thank God for President Trump and for FLOTUS Melanie Trump who has returned dignity, grace, class, and beauty to the White House after eight years of hate-filled, resentful, nasty, and cloddish behavior by Michelle Obama who disrespected the American people, spending millions of American posterity hard-earned money on herself and her family. Where was your article about the corruption of Obama and his breaking of our laws and his utter and disgusting spitting on his oath to our Constitution, Merry?
    Andi Payne , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:07 am
    I am still confused how a billionaire was NOT considered 'elite' to the working class.. Does this not baffle anyone? OK, I get that America on both sides, left and right, is sick of getting screwed over by the elites. But Trump is no friend to the working man. He is only helping all his billionaire elite friends and creating practices that will hurt the working class who elected him, whether via healthcare reform or promising coal miners they can have their jobs back, when everyone knows that sector is dying. The rest of the world is getting ahead of us, in technology, infrastructure, renewable energy sources, etc. The divide between conservatives and liberals has become so ridiculous that no one cares about making the US a better place. Trump's laughable campaign slogan worked miracles in convincing voters, but I think everyone has sobered up to the dangers that Trump poses in so many ways. We might be tired of politicians in Washington, but if most of us are honest, this 'shake-up' is going to do a lot of damage. Maybe it's what we need in the long run to be able to change things, but all the laws and deregulation have only made the elite stronger. It makes companies bigger, and the working man poorly treated and expendable.
    Slugger , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:07 am
    Please help me understand. What remedies are you recommending? The reason I ask is because these accusations against a class of people, the elites, rather than against specific wrongful acts smack of Mao and the Cultural Revolution to me. I sense that some wish to see professors and newspaper editors working in fields with hand tools. I may have misread this posting, but Fran Macadam's comments sound like a call for at least a sharp turn to me.
    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:17 am
    Reflecting further.

    I'm not buying the "it's the elites" problem. An 'elite', more often than not, is someone who is using power in a way we don't like, along with that person's clique. This is akin to using the term, 'activist judges'.

    Ultimately, a democracy always gets the leaders it deserves. Once in a great while, it gets better leaders than it deserves. There will always be facilitators of our worst instincts but ultimately, people have a choice. If a democracy is dysfunctional, it's not because some 'elites' or 'deep state' have taken over everything. It's because the voters kept electing idiots and representatives that didn't truly represent their interests.

    SDS , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
    Not sure if Trucker46 is serious, or auditioning to write for "the ONION" ..
    Devinicus , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:38 am
    Regarding the history of immigration in the United States, the Census Bureau says that the post-1850 peak was in 1890 when 14.8% of residents were foreign born, followed closely by 1910 when 14.7% were foreign born.

    Pew estimates that the US will break these records around 2025. Soon we'll have to go back to the mid-1700s to find a period in American history with a level of immigration we will be experiencing in the near future.

    Omar , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:40 am
    Well written article. Thank you.
    bkh , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:41 am
    -Vince Hill said: "What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words."

    Those masses are not relevant to those "Elites" and are cannon fodder. The term "Deplorables" says it all. The masses are not worthy of any consideration. Those "Deplorables" are an obstacle to be eliminated for the greater good. You don't need shadow govt conspiracies to see this kind of stuff anymore. The blatant lies and manipulations from DC and the media originating from Dems and Repubs is there for all to see. The 2016 election cycle was a wake-up call. Neither candidate was fit to be a President. Both are crooked. Yet, the majority of sheep on both sides continue toward their slaughter. Trump may yet get us blown to bits, but I no longer care about saving the status quo. The majority of people have spoken in this this country and we have been broken for many Presidencies. The future of this nation, as is, is ugly, if one exists at all.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:44 am
    Mr. Trump is not the issue. And from what I have come to understand about Washington language from top to bottom, his language isn't the issue either, in my view.

    Whether he is unfit cannot even be addressed though I suspect he is, if one examines the long history of the office. I don't have any doubt that Mr Trump is an effective admin as head of state. As a non-politician, there may be some issues. And his policy and social positions may not square with my own. But that alone would not make him unfit. His temperament would not take unfit either. But having to sift through the emotional tantrums of so many in leadership, influence and power to make that assessment is a very tough slog.

    Now we have a secret source that indicates a Mr. Trump did something or other in pressing for an end of needless investigations, as any CEO might, if said investigations were hindering the effectiveness of his tenure. And clearly its a disruptive fire. The seed of which were laid immediately as it became clear that Mr Trump, now Pres Trump was a contender. There was talk of impeachment before the election, and while I appreciated the "heads up", it was disappointing that the agenda for the net four years was to impeachment a man even before he took office.

    I once said that Mr Trump was be given the royal "black treatment" and I stand by those comments. Everything he does, says, is a minefield. There are no mines, but there are explosions from multiple corners. I have to say, even some of the authors on TAC are are straining credulity, credibility with their "end of the world", "doom and gloom" commentary. The minefield, once again has not evidence, but rather, so and so said thus. There's nothing documented that Pres Trump has done anything to hinder anything about Russia or Gen Flynn. This type of scrutiny makes it impossible to do one's job.

    I have been in communication for a long long time. And while my life is but a wreck at the moment. I have had some successes in competitive speech, and coaching. When I did my master's degree, I was unfit for teaching as a grad assistant. Not because of a lack of skill, knowledge or expertise, but because by every measure I had. What made the post a total disaster was the scrutiny as if I I had never done anything of the kind. If you have been teaching a while, there are things you know that a grad just have a clue about. My adviser attempted to fit my roundness into a nonexistent square peg. The entire graduate program was a disaster and a disaster in every way. They simply had no clue how to manage someone who had long past graduate level knowledge or experience. And much to failure, I did, wouldn't, couldn't communicate that fact, though given the internal politics of the place, I doubt it would have mattered. The behaviors were at best dysfunctional at worst criminal. If I wasn't already highly suspicious, by the time I left, I was certainly distrustful. I was asked if I wanted to pursue legal redress - the idea of that mess has always been a route to be avoided, save for defense. "People are people, and sometimes they just do dumb stuff," was my attitude. I was probably incorrect, dumb, innocent or malicious it was deeply beyond the pail.

    Pres. Trump has entered an arena in which he has no respite from the attack or question of every aspect of his being and on every matter. While, a Pres should expect scrutiny, what he has been subjected is over Everest unreasonable and reasoned. The constant hyperbolic crisis mongering from people who supposedly have a better temperament, judiciousness, and higher moral code is a tad bit "funny".

    No. Humorous.

    What is in play and of deep concern are the repeated manufactured crisis to disrupt his tenure Crisis mongering that began shortly after 9/11 and has progressed with increasing speed, oddly enough when actual crisis have subsided. Aside form the economy, the country faces no "real" threat beyond securing the border.

    Given our rather carelessness action in the region of the middle east, we had better obey the security protocols prior to 9/11 any of which would have prevented the attack or severely diminished its success. Checking expired passports would have been helpful – devastating to the attackers.

    In Compton, Detroit, NYC, Tallahassee, Birmingham, there are hard working folks trying to figure out how they are going to compete against the immigrant who's labor is cheaper, who doesn't contribute to the community as much as they draw. They are trying to figure out how to be fair to their issues, without starving their own. They are doing everything possible to avoid being "deplorable" and always have. And yet the representatives of their locals are about dealing with muckraking needlessly.

    -----
    "Sad!"

    Boy. it's not a good sign when you are sad. Stay fiesty!

    Those in opposition made it clear where they stood before the election. And Mr. Trump has just started to climb this long hill.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:49 am
    There's no reason for the war to turn violent, we are some distance from that turn and even the suggestion is hard to hear.

    It suggests a state of threat that need not be aired. In many ways, this situation is airing out the problem, for those brave enough to acknowledge it.

    Though avoiding confrontation of any kind hasn't aided me much, I admit.

    • [May 19, 2017] The Special Counsel Comes to Town Its the Moscow Trials, Revisted by Justin Raimondo

    Robert Mueller was FBI director on September 11, 2001 (he was appointed on September 4).
    Now Russia is officially a pariah state, any contacts with Russian officials can be a career limited move.
    Notable quotes:
    "... After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. ..."
    "... In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees. ..."
    "... Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    The Special Counsel Comes to Town: It's the Moscow Trials, Revisited

    The witch-hunt begins

    Donald Trump ran on a platform of improving relations with Russia: his victory was a mandate for that policy. Yet the real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box, and that reality was brought home when the Justice Department appointed a "special counsel" to investigate " any links and/or coordination with the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump ."

    After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real.

    Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible – and Trump's goal of "getting along with Russia" will surely not be implemented now that the regime of the special counsel has trumped him – but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive, and perhaps prosecute him for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the process.

    No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic. Because the warning to our politicians could not be clearer: So you want to effect a fundamental change in US foreign policy? You dare to question the permanence of NATO? Let this be a lesson to you.

    This goes way beyond the Trump administration: the potential targets of the investigation are potentially unlimited. Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein's letter to the Special Counsel – Bush era FBI Director Robert Mueller – also states that the counsel's purview includes "any matters that arose directly from the investigation," as well as "any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4 (a) ," which refers to anyone who might conceivably be involved in obstructing the Special Counsel's probe.

    In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees.

    Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

    Furthermore, any media outlets that either supported Trump, had a good word to say about Trump, and/or dissented from the Russophobic hysteria that has gripped the "mainstream" media are liable to be scrutinized. Journalists with "Russian ties" – no matter how tenuous – will be caught up in the witch-hunt. The Washington Post gave front page prominence to a group of anonymous "researchers" that calls itself " PropOrNot ," which has compiled a lengthy list of "pro-Russian" media outlets and web sites – including the Drudge Report, and Antiwar.com.

    The dynamics of the witch-hunt will play out in the manner in which it has operated up until this point, only more so: the "mainstream" media will act as the research department of DOJ investigators, "uncovering" the "pro-Russian" network in the US, inviting Mueller to move in for the kill. Politicians, journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for "Putin's puppets."

    We haven't seen this kind of thing since the 1950s. Indeed, the history of these political lynchings goes all the way back to the Moscow Trials conducted by Stalin and his henchmen, who consolidated their power by prosecuting "Trotskyite wreckers" and other "enemies of the people" – to the applause of Western "liberals."

    What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States. Yet it is more – and worse – than that.

    This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war. It is, in effect, political terrorism – that is, an attempt to achieve political-ideological goals by the threat of force, i.e. the threat of State coercion. The police state methods utilized by law enforcement agencies in this country since 9/11 – universal surveillance, and the whole menu of cyber-spying techniques exposed by Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks – will be deployed. And it won't just be our own American spooks doing the eavesdropping.

    The involvement of the British and other European intelligence agencies in this regime-change operation on American soil is well-known : it was a "former" MI6 agent, one Christopher Steele , who authored and circulated the infamous "dirty dossier" on Trump. The Ukrainians, in particular, are in the forefront of this campaign: their targeting of Paul Manafort is out in the open . And a recent article in the Washington Post which relates a conversation between GOP House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and others, has McCarthy saying he thinks both Trump and Rep. Rohrabacher are "paid by Putin." The exchange took place on Capitol Hill, after a meeting with the Ukrainian envoy – and the Post , in a story datelined Kiev, reports that it was "recorded." So who did the recording? My bet is on the Ukrainians.

    ... ... ...

    [May 19, 2017] Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
    "... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
    "... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
    "... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
    "... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
    "... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
    "... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, May 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM

    Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.

    And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism on the horizon.

    But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored ? I think not.

    With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical changes.

    When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force".

    That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.

    I think Robert W. Merry analysis of the situation is pretty insightful. In his article in the American Conservative ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/removing-trump-wont-solve-americas-crisis/) he made the following observations:

    At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

    ... ... ...

    The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.

    ... ... ...

    Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.

    ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre."

    That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.

    ... ... ...

    There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.

    IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.

    [May 19, 2017] Trump and the Russia leak A bogus news story spins out of control by Jay Sekulow

    May 19, 2017 | www.foxnews.com

    The truth is, what's really putting our nation is risk is the flagrant leaking from within the federal bureaucracy – those who oppose President Trump who are breaking the law when they leak classified materials.

    President Trump's critics and opponents – including many in the news media – claim this faux story about President Trump providing classified material to the Russians puts the United States at risk.

    The truth is, what's really putting our nation is risk is the flagrant leaking from within the federal bureaucracy – those who oppose President Trump who are breaking the law when they leak classified materials.

    The real story – the real crisis – is the ongoing leak of classified information. That is serious and something that the Trump Administration must address without delay. How this latest "story" unfolded has become all too common in Washington. It's a manufactured crisis that puts our national security at risk.

    Let's hope Attorney General Sessions has impaneled a grand jury to investigate these troubling leaks. These leakers need to face criminal charges and face prosecution.

    The Trump Administration needs to send a strong message. It's time to seek out and prosecute those who are criminally leaking classified material.

    The fact is that many of those working to derail the Trump Administration work inside the federal government. They are part of the bureaucratic "swamp" and in many cases are loyal to President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton

    They don't like the way the election turned out. And they really don't like that President Trump is in the Oval Office.

    There's no question that there's a deep state shadow government at work here. What we're experiencing is an unprecedented bureaucratic soft coup undermining our security.

    The Obama Administration took action to empower the entrenched bureaucracy to subvert our national security right before leaving office. It has led to dangerous leaks, criminal violations of the Espionage Act, and the creation of a shadow government to sabotage the new Administration.

    At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're directly engaged in half a dozen lawsuits to expose the shadow government and stop these dangerous national security leaks.

    It's time to plug the leaks and punish those who are responsible for leaking classified information.

    Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which focuses on constitutional law. He's a New York Times bestselling author. Jay's latest book – "Unholy Alliance: The Agenda Iran, Russia, and Jihadists Share for Conquering the World" – is available now. He hosts "Jay Sekulow Live"-- a daily radio show which is broadcast on more than 850 stations nationwide as well as Sirius/XM satellite radio. Follow him on Twitter @JaySekulow .

    [May 19, 2017] Removing Trump Wont Solve Americas Crisis by Robert W. Merry,

    Notable quotes:
    "... America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis. ..."
    "... Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own. ..."
    "... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
    "... "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary. ..."
    "... What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.

    What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own.

    When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem. We're talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee-a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit "good works" institution that actually was a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president, and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered Americans as "deplorables." The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.

    At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

    The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?

    So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution-and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent-a proportion unprecedented in American history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.

    And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country's civic health of questions related to assimilation-what's an appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile, we have "sanctuary cities" throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce the immigration laws-the closest we have come as a nation to "nullification" since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s, when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn't like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)

    Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.

    And, though these policies were designed to boost economic growth, they have failed to do so, as America suffered through one of the longest periods of mediocre growth in its history.

    All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers, left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope.

    And if they complain they find themselves confronting the forces of political correctness, bent on shutting them up and marginalizing them in the political arena. For all the conservative and mainstream complaints against political correctness over the years, it was never clear just how much civic frustration and anger it was generating across the country until Donald Trump unfurled his attack on the phenomenon in his campaign. Again, it was ordinary Americans against the elites.

    The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.

    When Trump, marshaling this anti-elite resentment into a powerful political wave, won the presidential election last November, it was noted that he would be a minority president in the popular vote. But then so was Nixon; so was Clinton; so was Wilson; indeed, so was Lincoln. The Trump victory constituted a political revolution.

    Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.

    Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, even suggests the elites of Washington should get rid of Trump through the use of the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president if a majority of the cabinet informs the Congress that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and if a two-thirds vote of Congress confirms that judgment in the face of a presidential challenge. This was written of course for such circumstances of presidential incapacity as ill health or injury, but Douthat's commitment to the counterrevolution is such that he would advocate its use for mere presidential incompetence.

    Consider the story of Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. No one disputes the president's right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly, it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?

    The president and his top foreign policy advisers, who were present during the conversation, say he didn't. The media and Trump's political adversaries insist that he did, at least implicitly. We don't know. But we do know that when this story reached the pages of The Washington Post , as a result of leaks from people around Trump who want to see him crushed, it led to a feeding frenzy that probably harmed American interests far more than whatever Trump may have said to those Russians. Instead of Trump's indiscretion being confined to a single conversation with foreign officials, it now is broadcast throughout the world. Instead of, at worst, a hint of where the intelligence came from, everyone now knows it came from the Israelis. Instead of being able to at least pursue a more cooperative relationship with Russia on matters of mutual interest, Trump is once again forced back on his heels on Russian policy by government officials and their media allies-who, unlike Trump, were never elected to anything.

    Thus is the Trump crisis now superimposed upon the much broader and deeper crisis of the elites, which spawned the Trump crisis in the first place. Yes, Trump is a disaster as president. He lacks nearly all the qualities and attributes a president should have, and three and a half more years of him raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult and deepening civic rancor. It could even prove to be untenable governmentally. But trying to get rid of him before his term expires, absent a clear constitutional justification and a clear assent from the collective electorate, will simply deepen the crisis, driving the wedge further into the raw American heartland and generating growing feelings that the American system has lost its legitimacy.

    There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.

    Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in September.

  • Mary Myers , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:24 pm
    If you want to know why things are as bad as they are and why Americans are so ignorant and dumbed down, get the video "Agenda" by Curtis Bower. It explains it all.
    Gregory , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm
    I agree with your diagnosis, even if the term "elite" is nebulous (aren't you, Mr. Merry, by virtue of your position as a D.C.-based journalist, an "elite"?). Anyway, Gilens and Page found as much.

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    What are some solutions?

    Chairman Moe , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
    Yeah this whole "elite" thing is kind of frustrating to hash out in good faith sometimes of course we want "elite" people in charge, in the sense that they're not illiterate imbeciles. The funny thing is how much "democracy" often fails those who are most wont to sing its praises. Those who identify as liberal tend to romanticize the idea of "the people" and their right to have a voice in our government, but then are sorely disappointed when those actual people exercise that voice in the real world. It's why most of the liberal social agenda of the past 50 years has been achieved through the courts, the least democratic institutions in our polity. "The people" wouldn't have voted for most of this stuff.
    Howard , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:38 am
    Since a lot of people are obviously having trouble with this concept: "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary.

    What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance.

    Devinicus , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:43 am
    Saying "elites are the problem" is NOT to say "let us eliminate all elites" (duh). It is instead to say "let us get ourselves different elites".

    A good elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the common good. A bad elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the good of elites alone. After deindustrialization and financialization and the Iraq War and the financial crisis and the Great Recession and the White Death combined with the ever growing wealth and power of what Richard Reeves calls the " dream hoarders ", it's pretty clear that we have bad elites.

    This is not to say that the masses are completely off the hook. A republic requires a virtuous elite AND virtuous masses. As Rod Dreher notes endlessly, the American masses aren't too virtuous nowadays, either.

    Jon S , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:48 am
    Cheap, imported labor lowers wages and improves profits. Moving manufacturing to China lowers wages and improves profits. Reducing income from savings forces people into the labor force, lowering wages and increasing profits. Labor's share of national income is at a low-point not seen since the 1920's. Corporate profitability is at an historical high point.

    I don't understand what "crisis" is being spoken of here. Isn't this exactly the scenario we have been attempting to create since Reagan? There is no crisis. This is the fruition of our conservative economic agenda. Isn't this site called "The American Conservative"?

    RRB , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm
    "Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?"

    "Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya."

    Good points. Now you may apprehend why we simple people are not so eager to react with panic to the hysteria being drummed up by the same "elite" people and institutions that melt down every time Trump walks out of his office.

    Devinicus , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:12 pm
    Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.

    They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults [5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially in NYC and DC.

    The unparalleled expansion of the (mostly white) educated professional class in the DC area over the past generation should occupy center stage in any conservative critique of the American elite.

    Howard , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote?

    Not at all. It makes them supremely desperate. The most important part of the election takes place before the first primary, when PACs and party officials determine what choices will be put before voters. Their candidates (from both parties) were likewise supremely unfit. I don't care much for either the Libertarians or Abe Lincoln, but Dead Abe Lincoln got one thing right: "Oh, hey America you just got screwed." Frankly, this has been going on for decades, but it is now reaching levels of abject absurdity.

    Michael Saber , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:29 pm
    I'm sorry, who's more elite than our golf club owning, billionaire President and his billionaires and investment bankers filled cabinet?
    KennethF , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
    What Bruce said. In addition: who could possibly be so simple-minded as to believe that the removal of Trump will magically fix government? Bottom line is, Trump is dangerously incompetent. There are no doubt some in gov't who would get rid of Trump for the wrong reasons, but there are many (too many) right reasons for doing so. Some of the so-called Deep Staters will be Republicans who understand that Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" was nothing more than an empty talking point - and more importantly, that he's a threat to national security. Getting rid of Trump would be just one step toward fixing gov't, but would be significant nonetheless.
    Donald , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:34 pm
    Actually, Bruce, some of us lefties agree with much, though not all of what Merry says. The elites in both parties have failed and if you want names one can go down a long list. On foreign policy, for instance, leaders in both parties like Clinton and McCain have consistently favored more intervention and more war. The only time Trump has been popular with the elites is when he bombed Syria.

    This post was already pretty long– if Merry had gone into detail on the financial crisis and foreign policy it would have been ten times longer.

    I despise Trump too. The problem is that many of his critics are cynical opportunists.

    Concerned Citizen , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:43 pm
    Thank your for your perspective and sanity in a time of great unrest and paranoia.
    Sandra , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm
    "So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions."

    How you view the policies on pre-existing conditions depends on whether you are looking at premiums or benefits. If you are looking at premiums then removing rules on pre-existing conditions will benefit you. If you are looking at benefits no so much. You can't say that lowering premiums doesn't help working class families. There is also a fairness issue. The pre-existing exclusion only kicks in if there has been a lapse in coverage which encourages some people to not pay into the insurance pool until they get sick. How is that fair to all the folks who paid their premiums even when they didn't avail themselves of healthcare services? The proposed plan only asks those who haven't been paying into the system to pay more to make the system more fair to those who paid all along. It doesn't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can also avoid the higher payments by making sure their coverage doesn't lapse. Yes there are those who let their coverage lapse due to a financial crisis and we do need to have programs to assist those who truly can't pay.

    John D. King , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:53 pm
    Bruce's comment is nonsense. The elites are not in the least vague and unnamed, plainly referring to the mainstream "news" media and professoriate and GOP and corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor and GOP renegades (most of them warmongers) displeased by being upstaged. He purports to want "real" solutions but is quick to condemn real limits on immigration and trade deficits and racism in the guise of affirmative action and comparable ornaments of "social justice." Then, those who resent the liberal status quo and don't share Bruce's values are child-like and paranoid.
    Such arrogant and abusive views as his scarcely deserve refutation.
    Andy Lord , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm
    "The elites" aren't the problem, using the phrase "the elites" in political debate is the problem. What elites, exactly, do NOT include Trump, the nepotistic New York billionaire whose father donated a building to get him into Wharton? "Elites" is the code word used by right wing propagandists when they're trying to induce gullible or resentful citizens into acting against their own interests. Anyone using the term is dishonest.
    Dave Poteet , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:56 pm
    If being elite means wanting a President who isn't a loose cannon and acts with some decorum and respect for the office than count me in I'm an elite.
    Wes , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm
    This was really excellent and sober. Quite a nice change.
    Mark Thomason , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:25 pm
    Trump arose from America's crisis. He is a reaction to it, not the cause.

    The crisis cause is best displayed by Hillary. She was the problem. Trump just was not the cure, even though he is the reaction we got.

    gnirol , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:26 pm
    John D. King contends: " corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor " are among the elites voters shunned when voting for Pres. Trump. Um corporate chief? Donald Trump. Eager for cheap labor? Donald Trump. Elite? Donald Trump? Sending his son to an elite school that costs as much as the school that Obama sent his daughters to? Donald Trump. The only thing about Donald Trump that isn't elite is his drunken boor (even though he doesn't drink) rhetoric and social skills which he uses to mask his elitism. If you want no more than symbolic anti-elitism, Donald Trump is your man, and that's what Donald Trump supporters seem to want: the feeling that they are superior to those whom they feel have put them down for years, instead of the skills enabling them to compete with and perhaps surpass the people they deride as elite. Meanwhile the substance of Donald Trump's life has been elitism since he was in business school about a half century ago. No reason to believe that will change, is there?
    JWJ , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm
    Bob Halvorsen wrote: "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush."

    The author wrote "minority in the popular vote". To me that means LESS than 50% of the irrelevant national popular vote total. The author is NOT saying that the presidents listed did not get the most votes in the irrelevant national popular vote, just that they received less than 50% of the total.

    Nixon 1968 – 43.4%
    Clinton 1992 – 43%
    Clinton 1996 – 49.2%
    Wilson 1912 – 41.8%
    Lincoln 1860 – 39.8%

    MM , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:28 pm
    Mueller's appointment sounds promising, all powerful politicians should be investigated if there's smoke, if not fire.

    But this discussion of elites conjures up a counter-factual President Hillary, elected President with a Democratically-controlled House, Senate, and solid 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court:

    Given her campaign's numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, along with an ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, including but not limited to the Russian uranium agreement, State Dept. pressuring Kazakhstan to sign off, after which donations were made, and Bill's speaking fees going up, other pay-to-play allegations involving some very nasty governments in Africa and the Middle East

    There would be no DOJ investigation, and no Special Counsel appointed. Even had she fired Comey herself on Day One. Impossible to prove, but none of this would be happening. And I doubt the press at large would be clamoring for investigations, because there wouldn't be any leaking going on.

    If elites are good at anything, it's circumventing the rule of law by stonewalling, or burying, all investigations into wrongdoing. The Obama DOJ excelled greatly at that sort of thing

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:38 pm
    For those of us who elected Donald Trump our President, Mr. Merry, your type of analysis is the most dangerous!

    On the one hand, you point to the root of the problems: "The elites are the problem."

    You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "[1] The hollowing out of the American working class '[2] the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind' [3] persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya [4] 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded."

    But then – having admitted that "Removing Trump Won't Solve America's Crisis" – you spout the elites' main talking point in their war to overturn the election results and to get rid of Donald Trump. You trumpet the elites' biggest lie. You say: "These people [the elites] are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job."

    You are wrong, Mr. Merry. Totally wrong! President Trump is supremely qualified, and for these reasons:

    • He was the only presidential candidate with the courage to stand up and identify the real problems that have been destroying America and

    • He was the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the elites and not to back down.

    You say, Mr. Merry, that "three and a half more years of [Trump] raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult."

    You're wrong again. The tumult is entirely necessary. In fact the tumult is inevitable because we Americans have finally elected a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems. We have finally elected a President who has the guts to stand up to the powerful elites who created these problems. We have finally elected a President who will fight for us – fight for us and not back down!

    The elites don't like what they see. They don't like Trump and they don't like us, because we put Trump in the White House.

    Those of us who elected Donald Trump President because he fights for us are willing and able to fight for him!

    What the elites do to Trump, they do to us!

    "Tumult"? Bring it on!

    San , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:41 pm
    "The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America."
    I don't agree at all with this assessment of what the "elites" want or expect.
    I believe that the strong following Bernie Sanders had–and still has– is indicative of the large numbers of Americans who find the the "status quo" a questionable way to proceed.
    This is not an endorsement of Bernie Sanders or a lamentation that he didn't get the nomination, it is just a clarification of terms of "what the elite want" i.e. you're barking up the wrong tree.
    Also not sure who you consider an elite; the whole article seems based on flimsy assumptions.
    Steve in Ohio , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    YES to what Anti Empire wrote at 10:51 am.

    I am thinking more and more that our only hope is partition. If California wants to let half of Mexico in, go for it. Just don't ask Idaho or Montana to send you water when you run out. If New England and New York want to be run by Wall Street capitalists with SJW social views, go for it. Encourage your working class and middle class people to move to the South or the Midwest and you can be just like Brazil! A nice place to vacation run by very rich people, but inhabited by mostly poor people. Another benefit of partition would be that the Ununited States would not have the size or resources to be the world's policeman. Sounds like a win for almost everybody but the neo-cons and the liberal interventionists.

    Mark , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:02 pm
    Thanks! This essay was worth the subscription price.
    EdR , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    To be honest, I don't really agree with the thesis of this article. The idea of elite as pejoratives seems out of place with the usage in other contexts and suggests we need a clearer articulation of what exactly it is we are angry about. This being said, regardless of where the problem lies, these so called "elites" have done an amazing job of turning the political machine to their advantage. We elected them – we elected Trump. I guess the thing I come back to is we need to stop seeking evidence of why we are right and start seeking evidence of why we are wrong – especially when it comes to candidates. I honestly don't know what this would look like or if it would be possible – but I feel like we need to change the way we know and evaluate candidates. It feels clear to me that the things we use as yardsticks fail us and warrants a re-imaging of how we determine fitness for public positions.
    Joe , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    19 paragraphs not a single solution. Yep, American Conservative.
    Jeremy , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:40 pm
    "Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee "

    You mean 16 million primary voters, largely women and minorities? They're hardly elites. Your whole premise falls apart here.

    MEOW , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:43 pm
    Remove Trump? No! Push him to keep his basic promises and not grovel to the warmongers and entrenched.
    Roy Fassel , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm
    The term "elite" might well mean nothing more than "educated and knowledgeable and experienced." We can see what happens when a rich person seems uneducated in world history, uneducated in our form or government and shows no leadership qualities for running a government. He is not an elite. He is a bozo. Michael Jordan was an "elite" basketball player. Do you want anything less in the top ranks of government?

    The term "elite" has a negative tone for those who do not understand how difficult issues are. As was said "I never knew how complicated health care was." And this bozo was elected.

    Avi Marranazo , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm
    The elites who have made it their business to replace the American people, with aliens who'll vote them, are the problem.
    Nelson , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:05 pm
    You can only blame the elites so much in a democracy. We elect presidents who appoint judges that say corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who work for them. We often confuse supporting our troops for supporting whatever war they're sent to. We want to cut taxes but we also want more warplanes. We spend more than any other country on healthcare and complain about costs but we reject systems other countries use that are proven more efficient. We spend much time complaining about elites but, with few exceptions, we keep electing them.
    One Man , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    we Americans have finally elected a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems"

    Like whining to the Coast Guard about how tough life is!

    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    Kurt Gayle: "You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "

    Perfectly valid reasons. Unfortunately, a perfectly wrong candidate and a perfectly wrong party to support. For most of the issues cited (excepting immigration), you'd really want a Progressive. Trump and the GOP were never going to 'clean out the swamp' (he opened the gates to the swamp), never going to try reversing the flow of wealth away from the poor & middle classes, never de-escalate military conflict, and never going to wrest control from "financialists".

    For that work, Trump is unqualified, slow to learn and has demonstrated a disquieting disinterest in actual details.

    I agree with most of the objectives you mention, but Trump was never even close to being right person for the job. Better to wash your hands of this Administration and move on.

    rhine-gold cowboy , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:21 pm
    @ Bruce

    " The term "The Deep State" being latest iteration, allowing anybody to speculate and project their own predjudices and paranoias as to these dark and unnamed forces as well comfortably allowing us each to excuse our own failures as being secretly the fault of some vague and unnamed "them"."

    Deep State theory originated in the New Left as a response to the Kennedy assassination, for instance with the works of Carl Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott, who was using the phrase "deep politics" decades ago not the only way in which the modern GOP base has started to sound like left-wingers from the old days, but one of the more surprising.

    John F LaVoy , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm
    I could pretty readily contradict some of the article's details, but I will skip that in order to agree with the basic premise. Yes, the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena signify a dissatisfaction with elitism. However, solutions not only exist, but abound. One in particular presents itself as not only advisable, but as a necessary condition: I will present only that one possibility here.

    As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.

    Absent that change, there really is no hope. We might not like it, and we might be forced to revisit principles we thought inviolate, but it is a necessary condition of restoring government of, by, and for the people.

    Cash , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:37 pm
    The problem with our elites is they do well when the rest of the country is going down the drain.

    Most of the blame attaches to Republican elites but the Dems are not immune.

    Since Reagan's election and the start of the libertarian takeover of the Republican party, America has shredded the social contract we have with one another. No more we're-in-this-together. No more we-are-our-brother's-keeper.

    Instead of decent middle class jobs with all the benefits, we've moved toward a gig economy where everyone is always hustling for the next job/client. Which the New Yorker recently called the work-until-you-die economy.

    Yes, if you're talented and lucky - the Yankees bringing you up from the minors, Paramount pictures distributing the movie you financed with credit cards, your start-up getting acquired by Microsoft - it is easier than before to become successful.

    But if you're a temporary receptionist at a law firm or driving for Uber . . .

    We've wrecked all the countervailing powers that inhibited capital from overwhelming labor. The share of US income going to capital (dividends, interest, capital gains) versus labor (paychecks) has soared.

    Unions are dead. Infrastructure and other public spending is gone. NAFTA was supposed to come with support for workers whose jobs went to Mexico but Bob Dole didn't believe in coddling losers.

    For-profit education and soaring tuition with bankruptcy law no longer permitting discharge of student load debt. How are those kids ever going to afford to buy the houses older people are counting on to finance their retirements?

    Years without increases in the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is the reference wage for most other wages. Up the minimum wage and everyone earning a paycheck will soon get a raise too.)

    That's what libertarians did to the Republican party and then to America. We stopped caring about the well-being of our fellow citizens because everything is a business deal between two self-interested parties. That's how you think on Wall Street and Silicon Valley. (And in 2008-09, when Wall Street drove the economy off a cliff, ordinary Americans bailed out the bankers.)

    But if you're an out-of-work steelworker addicted to opiates? Your bad choices are not my problem.

    The poster child for elites who no longer care about ordinary Americans is Pete Peterson of Blackstone. Remember his dog and pony show about federal govt's looming fiscal crisis? His solution was to gut entitlement spending that's probably keeping a lot of people alive.

    And here's the kicker: nothing about this fiscal crisis was so severe that a solution would require billionaires like Peterson to tighten their belts.

    Trump and Sanders picked up on the rage and despair that ordinary citizens feel for our elites and what they're doing to our country. Hillary and the rest of the Republican candidates misread the mood.

    Trump is now proposing the same old Republican agenda. Tax cuts for the rich to be financed by gutting Obamacare. More deregulation and less public spending.

    Yes, America is in crisis. Support for democratic norms is razor-thin and declining.

    This country needs to recommit to a social contract. And a social safety net. We're all in this together. The rich can't do well at the expense of everyone else if this country is to live up to our ideals.

    Back in the 1950s, the head of General Motors told a congressional hearing that he always thought that what was good for GM was good for America and what was good for America was good for GM. He got laughed at. But he was right. If he's selling cars, it means people are feeling good about their prospects.

    I'm waiting for a presidential candidate who promises that the rich are going to bear the biggest share of the burden when Americans roll up our sleeves to fix our country. He'll win in a landslide.

    Alex , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:49 pm
    Finally!
    A writer with critical thinking skills!
    PRDoucette , says: May 18, 2017 at 4:06 pm
    If wealth equals power then the only way you are going to limit the power of the elites is by massive campaign reform that would curtail the influence the wealth of the elites currently has over the political process. Neither Republicans or Democrats have shown the slightest interest in meaningful campaign reform for the simple reason that it is easier fund a campaign with millions from the elites who donate directly to a campaign and indirectly through a PAC. Without meaningful campaign reform the US will slowly but surely slip from being a democracy to an oligarchy run by the elites for the benefit of the elites. The crisis in the US is that it seems most citizens seem willing to accept that because of their wealth the elites are more likely to know how to govern. Sadly these citizens are having to learn that being a wealthy elite like Trump does not automatically mean that he knows how to govern.
    Jack Everett , says: May 18, 2017 at 4:32 pm
    I agree the problem is the elites not Trump he is to stupid and psychotic to do so much damage.
    Eric R , says: May 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm
    As a moderate lifelong Republican, I was a NeverTrumper through the primaries where my guy (Rubio) did well in my state, winning the contest. Only after Trump prevailed did I go off for a few hours on a long walk to contemplate what this meant for me, my party and my nation. I concluded that Trump was a necessary evil if we were serious about giving the 100,000,000 working men and women in this country a fair shake at the American Dream. Someone had to be ballsy enough to reconstruct the Federal Bureacracy and anyone less than a guy like Trump would wilt in the heat generated by the left leaning media and left leaning Federal Bureaucracy.

    Let's face it. Had HRC won absolutely nothing would have changed except our acceptance of corruption in our body politic. I still have hope that the Federal Government can be right-sized and the power redistributed to the United States of America not DC.

    Therein lies the fight of our time. We can either concede the fight and let DC make all the decisions (including whether to fix the pot holes on my local streets)to we can ask what each citizen can do for his or her country. It's a binary choice really. You either believe that all the power should reside with the Feds and the dictates and mandates that go with power being held 1000 miles away .or you're in favor of 95% of the decisions that impact you locally and in your state.
    If you need to find out where someone sits on this issue, ask them 2 simple questions.
    1) Who is Joe Biden?

    2) Name just 2 people from all of the following: Who's your Mayor? City Council? County Commission? School Board? State Senator? State Rep? Lt. Governor? School Board?

    Ed , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    The Trump era will be cathartic or emetic. Government operations will be so confused and erratic that people will start to think that maybe elite rule wasn't so bad and will look forward to "the grown-ups" taking over again. Of course, every new administration now claims to be "the grown-ups" reasserting themselves - that's come to be a given - but those pretensions will be taken more seriously when the next administration takes over.

    So are the elites to blame? Well, in a way. They have their agenda, and it's not always shared by ordinary Americans. But ordinary Americans don't agree with each other all that often, and depending on what the issue is, some parts of the general public are closer to the governing elites than they are to other parts of the public. It could be that elites manage to get enough support from non-elite voters to stay in office.

    But also, competence is a factor. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about elites, but much of the energy of governing elites may go into being just well-informed enough to do a half-way credible job of staying on top of events, rather than into deep-laid plans to thwart popular wishes.

    Blueshark , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm
    "All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers, left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope."

    Nice try.

    Three things led to the "hollowing out" of the American working class, and they have nothing to do with ephemeral vaporings about "divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks."

    1. Automation – and there's just no way around that – the semi-skilled and some skilled jobs giving lower-educated workers a strong middle class life are gone.

    2. "Reagan Democrats" who've been voting staunchly Republican and stood by watching and nodding while conservatives have eviscerated and vilified union jobs that also supported a middle class lifestyle (see, e.g., "right-to-work" states).

    3. Globalization (abetted by both parties) that shipped these jobs overseas – although there's no clear solution to this in an emergent 21st-century global economy.

    Look, I grew up outside of Detroit and knew families and friends who didn't go to college, but went to work on the line and could afford a middle class life. For the reasons listed above, those days are gone forever.

    Hyperion , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Devinicus

    Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.

    They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults [5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially in NYC and DC.

    Using that definition, the author of this post is an elite. But I bet he claims he is not.

    The thing is, Mr. Merry is a journalist. I'm hearing a lot about how dastardly THEY are from Trump supporters.

    Hyperion , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    John F LaVoy

    As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.

    I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone who is not rich think that money = speech? What other democracy has an election funding system as bizarre as ours?

    Andy Lord , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
    Trump's "populism" is based on the same old demagogue's standbys: xenophobia, scapegoating, racism, anti-intellectualism, economic anxiety, nationalism, and a yearning for an idealized past that never existed. The idea of Trump as some shirt-sleeved populist warrior who is going to correct the inequities of wealth distribution in the U.S. is too laughable to bother with. I would refer anyone to the two health care bills he has championed so far, which were poorly disguised attempts to enrich the wealthy even further, while robbing tens of millions of their ability to afford health insurance.
    Hexexis , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:08 pm
    Sorry, but the problem is not the "elite" but the "elitists": them that's curried favor-always monetary-w/ other elitists in exchange for donations at election time. With Clinton & Trump, we had two elitists that thought they deserved the pres'y & were propelled by the elitists running the campaigns & parties that hoped to gain from either of those two in the W.H.

    Meanwhile, the press worked feverishly to turn Clinton & Trump into viable candidates-w/ ancient, useless labels like "liberal," progressive"; "anti-establishment," "populist"-& convinced voters that they were the "best men" for the job.

    So I ended up voting for our state's Repo. gov.; who in turn voted for his own father, an 88-yr-old former congressman. That was effect elitists had on some of us.

    Brian W , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:13 pm
    April 25, 2017 Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing

    In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/

    Jeff Fine , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:47 pm
    While we may despise elites ( and just who are they?) the decision to vote for Donald Trump as a solution seems to me to be beyond stupid.
    Ellimist000 , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:00 pm
    "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise?"

    Because the author is letting his partisanship relive him of his good sense. Or he is as numerically challenged as his president, who knows?

    These people won PLURALITIES of the popular vote. So did Hillary Clinton. They all received the most votes in an election with three or more candidates but received less votes than the total that voted for some one else. Everyone on the planet besides third-world dictators and Republicans generally describe this phenomenon as "winning an election".

    A plurality is very different from getting a minority of the vote like Trump did. I am sure that Merry knows this. If you don't believe me, go ask the folks who voted Green and Libertarian who they would have voted for as a second choice if they were forced to

    TR , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
    Thank you, Nelson, at 3:05 p. m.

    And BTW, a lot of those immigrants (to whom I do not object) are here because of America's fascination with foreign wars and intrusions. Think "boat people," for example, or Iranian refugees or Cuban, etc., etc. Our stupidity produces moral obligations.

    David Naas , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:34 pm
    Contra the demos-fueled hissy-fit over "Elites", I have no problem with Elites running the world. For one thing, they (Elites) always have run the world, and that isn't going to change, except cosmetically.

    Nor do I have a problem with them reasonably rewarding themselves for their efforts.

    Experiments with direct participatory democracy have usually ended in the sort of lynch-mobbing which murdered Socrates.

    I have neither time nor interest in attending to every pettyfrogging detail of running a village government, let alone one of 300 million souls. Even with the Internet, "direct democracy" ends up being run by a few (reference Athens, if any doubt).

    The current outrage-aholic fixation over "elites" is not because they are Elites, but because they are INCOMPETENT Elites. It is said the Brits lost the Empire because they forgot how to govern, and now, it is our turn.

    Eric Hoffer told us how Elites fall back in 1950 (The True Believer), but we were so fat and happy we ignored what he said. Besides, he was a longshoreman, with no credentials. What did he know?

    My preference is for Them to fix Their problem, and to get back running affairs properly.

    Then I can focus on playing with my grandkids, flirting with my wife, and drinking beer in late afternoon with Old Blue at my feet.

    Selah!

    CascadeJoe , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:30 am
    Well, he talks and tweets a lot. But NAFTA is still in force (he learned of downsides of ash canning it), Iran sanctions have not been increased (maybe he thought of jobs related to jet sales important), he is talking with Russia (as opposed to talking about it), and has let all know about his aversion to gassing civilians.

    Let us continue to observe what he does, not what he tweets. I plan to come back in late July and take a look, 100 days just is too short to come to a decision.

    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:30 am
    Well, at least it wouldn't be a step backwards.
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:33 am
    So true. Another of the few sane voices, with intellectual heft to match that sobriety. Wish Rod Dreher would read and be convinced by your salient analysis, even if against his will. I think too many conservatives genuflect to established hierarchy, whatever its faults, out of a character that is disposed to distrust change, even needed change. I myself do not buy into the reasoning, "better the devil we know." I really think only the relatively well off can sustain such a view, whether in Manhattan or connected to it via the internet in Baton Rouge. The rest of us are too desperate.

    The elites truly are the problem. Just like those who blame Russia, they won't take ownership. They will need one heckuva Homeland Security and clampdown on the population they view as intolerable, once they have their coup against democracy. It is certain to be a pyrrhic victory though, as no elites in history ever gave up their power willingly or peacefully, yet in every case they were forcibly removed in paroxysms of violence by angry mobs of citizens who lost faith in a rigged system that would not allow needed peaceful change.

    Sad!

    RomanCandle , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:45 am
    VERY well said.
    Patricus , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:58 am
    So Trump lacks all the qualities and attributes of a proper President. What exactly are those qualities beyond getting elected? Who are the great examples Trump should imitate? Let's see, the community organizer? The son of a Bush? The man from Hope? Poppy Bush? I am one who admired Reagan but he did run up the debt. The quality these people share is a ludicrous vanity. Can't understand the notion that Trump is far below the rest of these flawed human beings. He seems to be just another one. What the heck, he might turn out to be effective. It is way too early to know.
    Mark Christensen , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:43 am
    Very true. The elites want to turf Trump because he is jeopardising a model that sustains their salaries and prestige, yet of course they can still not offer an alternative to what was there before.

    The elites can't look outside the system, to something beyond the system, because that is, by definition, something they can't control or make false promises about. The deeper problem is they are unwilling to even have this conversation, for fear it would lead to a logical conclusion about the inadequacies of power.

    Rosita , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:58 am
    What a bore and a canard; Trump_vs_deep_state has shown itself in capable of competent and capable public policy; quick on the trigger to tear everything down but in coherent and undisciplined to build anything of consequence to replace it. I'll take the elites any day over nihilism and petulance. Trump is the mirror image of his voters and it gives me great satisfaction to see their political fortunes grind to dust Over their own incompetence.
    Weldon , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:12 am
    Meh. People keep screaming about a "crisis" but aren't able to actually point to one. The economy is doing well. Crime is at historic lows. There are so few actual problems that people are taking to manufacturing them (e.g. opioids).

    I think the real issue here is that the politically-powerful Baby Boom is approaching the final years of its narcissistic, navel-gazing existence, and assumes the entire world disappears when they do.

    Frank , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:14 am
    When in the history of mankind were they not?
    Chris in Appalachia , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:56 am
    This article does a good job stitching together much of the Elites' sins. It is apparent to me that the American government can't be reformed from within by electing reform candidates. If reform is possible, it can't come from the Northeast and West Coast. It will never come from a Harvard, or any other Ivy League school, graduate. It won't come from a Boston Catholic person or New York Jewish-American. It won't come from a Baby Boomer who wishes to continue to prop up the social changes they ushered in the 60s and 70s. I would expect actual reform to come from a young person in the American Heartland, which the bi-coastal elites deride as "Flyover Country." Wasn't it the "Rust Belt" who showed us the way in the 2016 election? And if and when reform (i.e. the non-violent neutering of the Elites' power abuses) comes, the reformers had better be prepared with a total package and not just one candidate. It may be a one-time opportunity, and must be executed with the utmost strategy and determination.
    Paul Roche , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:26 am
    But We Trump supporters are quite happy with his actions so far. We know the press is rigged against him. It is distressing to see the elitist Republicans attack him too though. You are right about the divide, but this may be our last best hope of taking the government back
    AleaJactaEst , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:39 am
    if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote? Startling hubris if you ask me.
    C. L. H. Daniels , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:49 am
    Who's ready to storm the Bastille? Torches, get your torches right here!
    RRDRRD , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:49 am
    Basically agree with the author;s position but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, stop calling elitists, elites. They are not "superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities" in fact, they are frequently inferior.
    Paul Grenier , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:50 am
    When Sen. Schumer announced, on MSNBC, that a president going against the CIA is 'stupid' because 'they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you,' doesn't that scream 'crisis' from the rooftops? Since when does America, allegedly a democratic republic, assume elected presidents are the subordinates of the CIA? Well, de facto, probably for many years, but to actually openly approve of it?

    But there was no even discussion of his statement! It set off no alarm bells, no demands for reigning in the CIA ('the intelligence "community"'). Why not? Presumably because the short-term interests of too many elites aligned in this case with that of the deep state. The habit of 'whatever works for me, for the moment' won out, once again, further degrading the political culture right at its institutional heart.

    And also because Schumer is right. It isn't smart to criticize the CIA It wouldn't be good for your career, you know what I mean? ('What are ya, a Russian commie or something?').

    Merry is absolutely right. Removing Trump does nothing. It does less than nothing. It drives the disease even further into the body politic. The only solution is honesty and courage. Can we muster it?

    Linen42 , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:00 am
    So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions.

    Say what you will about Obama and his
    looking down on the people", but take him on his actions and he has done more to help the lower class through legislation and executive orders than any other president in the past 30 years.

    But wait, he didn't do anything about immigration. So therefore ignore all the laws, ignore the rules changed, just focus on the revamped Know Nothings afraid of 3% of the population.

    Brian W , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:08 am
    Yes indeed so and a very good article.

    May 7, 2017 It Wasn't Russia, How Erdogan Bought Trump and His Neocon Gangsters, the Kosher Nostra

    Learn who Mike Flynn and Rudy Giuliani really work for and why they are stabbing America in the back while Trump smiles.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/05/07/it-wasnt-russia-how-erdogan-bought-trump-and-his-neocon-gangsters-the-kosher-nostra/

    John Gruskos , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:10 am
    Principled opposition to President Trump's character is limited to this magazine and a tiny handful of like minded pundits and politicians.

    If Trump had run on Hillary Clinton's platform, and if he were ruling in accordance with that platform, waging a war for regime change in Syria, signing TPP or some equivalent, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and greatly increasing the number of legal immigrants, the Democrats and neocons would be praising him to the skies and supporting him to the hilt.

    If, on the other hand, someone other than Trump, Pat Buchanan for instance, had been elected on Trump's platform, the Democrats and neocons would be attacking him with all the hysterical venom they are now hurling at Trump (remember the brief deranged hysteria that followed Buchanan's 1996 primary win in New Hampshire?) – and I suspect some of those who pass for principled critics of Trump's character would be caught up in this hypothetical anti-Buchanan hysteria, because of their sheer weak-willed yearning for social acceptance.

    Howard , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:24 am
    If you want to really be serious about "fitness to lead", it has been a very long time since the USA has had a president who was fit to lead.

    The fact is, though, that the first rumblings of "impeachment" started before the Electoral College even met, back while Democrats were still hoping to nullify what happened on election night through the Electoral College.

    The whole Russian angle is simply a pretext. No one is saying that Russia hacked into the voting machines and added or subtracted votes; at most they are accused of having done the kind of thing investigative journalists are praised for having done. When, in the midst of the American election, British parliamentarians discussed banning Trump from the UK, **THAT** was much more serious and overt tampering with our election, yet no one cares about that, because the UK is the land of Peter Pan and Mary Poppins, whereas Russia is the bogeyman. Thus we see headlines about Russian jets "buzzing" the coast of Alaska, only to read further down that by "buzzing" we mean they were 20+ miles into international airspace. Apparently it's an outrage that they should come within a thousand miles of American airspace. American spy planes in the Black Sea are a different story: after all, they remained in international air space the whole time!

    It is dangerous to cast Russia unnecessarily in the role of villain, but it is even more dangerous to engineer even the softest of coups. Once that is done, there is no going back. Very likely there would be widespread protests, many of them violent, and a large portion of the public would see the de facto government as not merely corrupt and foolish, but completely invalid. The "authorities" would probably be able to crush dissent, but only by going full-on Stalin. What happens after that, who knows, but this story would not have any happy ending.

    Steve Norton , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:24 am
    As usual, Merry's insights are useful and informed.However, Clinton, warts and all, would have more likely eased the pain of many Americans. Her campaign focused too much on aggrieved minorities and not enough on the pain shared by all but her policies would have more likely checked the manic redistribution of wealth from middle class to elite, ended the health care impasse that cruelly toys with people, made education more accessible and enhanced investments in science and technology that could create jobs in the coming years. With regard to immigration, it is true that adding so many immigrants to the population at a time when decent-paying jobs were being eliminated through technology created a bad optic but the ban or removal of millions of immigrants would not really restore middle class stability. Elites in both parties have made mistakes and been entirely too attentive to those who give the most money but let's not legitimize Trump's mixture of exploiting anger with false promises and pushing policies that will make the plight of working people even more desperate. Clinton might not have shaken up an elitist system she helped create but she would not have shaken our democratic institutions and attacked an already fragile polity the way Trump has and will continue to do for another 3 and half years. Like it or not, elites and disenfranchised will eventually have to work together and Trump has set back this inevitable and urgent collaboration years, if not forever.
    Bob Halvorsen , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:30 am
    Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush.
    Michael Powe , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:38 am
    A self-described "publishing executive" who writes magazine/blog articles for a living is a member of the "elite"! Condemned out of his own mouth. By his own vanity, perhaps.

    And the case is hardly made by deliberately misstating facts.

    65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Is that 65 million "elites," or 65 million "dupes" too stupid to "see through her"? 65 million irresponsible citizens? Are these 65 million the real "deplorables"?

    I don't expect to see any mea culpa statements from the numerous conservative writers and talking heads who made excuses for Trump's selection as candidate prior to the election. Many of those excuses were promulgated through TAC. But a look in the mirror, and a conversation with that "still, small voice" could be therapeutic for many of you.

    Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democratic Party, not the 65 million "deplorables," were responsible for conservatives' decision to go with a manifestly unsuitable candidate. Once again, those declaiming most loudly about "personal responsibility" - lack it.

    mightywhig , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:46 am
    Good piece. Clearly the many leakers aren't concerned about national security consequences. This is only about bringing down Trump. After all, the journalist establishment extolled Snowden for leaking tons of classified information. Trump might help himself by being a little more "political," and learning to fight the right battles.
    SJB , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    I hope your article gains a large readership that includes the nevertrump cadre. It is probably a pipe dream to hope they would wake up and become aware of how they and their preference for Hillary look to many of the 63 million people who voted for Trump. They knew he was inexperienced, coarse, and a mixed bag. They also know he's only been in office for 4 months and the obstruction, malicious leaks, and malignant hatred of Trump began long before he took office.

    Too many in the nevertrump cadre come off as self-righteous, smug Pharisees for whom conservatism has become a religion. For some reason, they think their own character, knowledge, and judgement is impeccable with no room for correction by 63 million voters. The vox populi needs the elites to override them. Such hubris. We are well aware that they would rather have had a Hillary presidency. Are they any more mature than the Left in dealing with defeat? Apparently not.

    Glenn Reynolds (professor of law) sums up the situation this way: "The childish response of Democrats - and 'NeverTrump' Republicans - to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do." It would behoove the nevertrumpers to consider what they are sowing and reaping. Has their hatred of Trump and smug self-righteousness made them deaf, dumb, and blind?

    I think Victor Davis Hanson's article (see link below) has articulated the situation best and is best read as a whole instead of excerpted. The National Review's readership fell greatly prior to the election because of the nevertrumpers pomposity, but not the readership of VDH's articles at the NRO. Perhaps instead of silently disagreeing, the vox populi need to intervene and impeach the nevertrumpers.

    The Nightmares and the Realities of Never Trump
    http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/17/nightmares-realities-never-trump/

    Trucker46 , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    You elected a chump over all the obvious reasons not to, and he iS going to go before the end of the summer, either for the reasons already in.front of us or for the new ones he will give us in.the next 60 days. Get your stupid saves out of the way now and allow the republic to recover.

    Btw the "you elected" phrase above is predicated on.the idea that the chump really won.the election, Cuz it's quite clear he may not have.

    Marianna Landrum , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    The problem is not the elite, but a POTUS who is ignorant and arrogant,who is unqualified and inept and who is a man-child trying to be a leader. He makes his own issues by opening his mouth and saying stupid things and insisting they are true, and doing stupid things and insisting they are good. It is obvious he has no plan for anything and doesn't understand much of what is going on around him. He never talks about anything of substance; on health care, Price had to deal with details, and with the tax plan, it was Cohn who revealed that amazing one page initiative. When he does talk, he stupidly gives intel to our enemies. Trump is an idiot with a pen and that is the problem and it is a problem for this country.
    connecticut farmer , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:56 am
    Excellent article. Can it be possible that the meritocratic oligarchy which runs this country still doesn't "get it?" Do they really believe that getting rid of Trump solves the problem? Can it be possible that they still can't see that absent proof of actual malfeasance, driving Trump out of office could make things even worse, as if things aren't bad already.

    As the days and weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is–yes.

    Tom , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:57 am
    This is, far and away, the best summary of our current situation I have read anywhere. Outstanding!

    One area around immigration could, however, be improved to truly capture why there is so much anger at the elites. On immigration, the article states: "Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. "

    While true, this still misses the main point. The point is that the nation has existing laws to control immigration. Because the elites could not change the law through the democratic process, they opted instead to just ignore the laws, with absolutely no consequences except for those who live in the communities impacted.

    In this context, the significance of the Clinton email scandal was magnified as it represented, again, the elites clearly violating the law with no consequences.

    The lawlessness aspect is a critical point that needs to be emphasized. The elite backlash is not just about policy disagreements, its about a class of people (elites) violating/ignoring the law for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The very fact that this could happen exposes how broken the system really is.

    Trucker46 , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:05 am
    And btw.. Tho the author here is a smart and good writer, this whole "elites" thing is a stupid argument.I agree that we democrats were too cowardly to nominate Bernie, whose whole message and absolute unlikelihood was most aligned with the spirit of the times. As a party we thought small and thus became small. But Hillary was so vastly superior to any of the republican candidates that the problem has nothing to do with right wing elites and everything to do with that large swath of the right wing which simply is deplorable. They are deplorable and they deserve to know that the nation as a whole knows them to.be such. There wzz a time when they knew their place– way down a hole with the boot of the nation s conscience firmly on.the top of their head. The right let them emerge from.that hole during the advent of the tea party Cuz it liked the fact that those losers were giving their movement breadth and energy.

    But don't think for a minute that those millions of prejudiced, disgusting people have been redeemed by the chumps supposed victory, they haven't. Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called them.such, idk, but the fact of their existence being a cancer in.the republic is as correct today as it was 400 years ago and in.every generation.to.follow.

    Michael , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 am
    With the absolute control the elites have upon the military industrial complex, the traditional media outlets, the bureaucratic "three-letter" departments of governance, as well as the powerful influence over both the judicial and legislative branches of the governmnet, it seems impossible to me that such a group could be thrown off by its citizenry by violent uprising or otherwise. Just watch some of the video of Chaffets lead intelligence committee trying to access information regarding the Clinton servers and you will begin to see the incredible scope of the problem we face in America and the world today. Just as it was God that delivered a rag-tag band of America patriots from the hands of elite-based tyranny at the founding of our country, it will take an act of God to remove the chains and shackles of the Deep State from off the necks of the American people. Unfortunately a growing number of Americans are turning their back on the only real chance of deliverance we have – He who delivered the Hebrews from the Egyptian elites can delver us also.
    BillCarson , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 am
    I am more than willing to fight the elites in the streets if necessary to stop them from forcing A duly elected president from office
    Don Wiley , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:18 am
    In the day when we received our news of national and international goings on via newspapers, there was a space for reflection and contemplation, and even some semblance of reasoned debate.

    That ship has sailed, never to return and we are in the day of "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

    It used to take some time and effort to form a proper mob.

    Xenon , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:31 am
    What defines this shadowy type – "elite?" Educated? Financially well off? Aren't you an elite? Or does it only apply to liberals and Democrats? How would you define yourself?
    SJB , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:31 am
    Apologies for a poorly written comment. The vox populi is a reference to a Douthat tweet: "7. But what, in the end, are elites for? What justifies their existence? Some sort of wisdom that the vox populi can lack." Douthat's article, his tweet storm, and the lack of strong repudiation from the nevertrump cadre pretty much ended my patience with all of them. It has become almost impossible to tell the difference between the hysterical Left and the outraged nevertrump cadre. This last week has been such a delightful display of how the media, establishment elites, and nevertrumpers feel about those 63 million unredeemable deplorable Americans who voted for Trump. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
    No to neos , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:35 am
    I agree with this. I voted for Trump and told my wife several times before voting, "I don't think Trump will be a good president. I'm voting for him to send a "f- you" to the elites who run this country.

    When I say elites, I don't mean only the high and mighty. In my hometown, where I have lived all my life, our city council has handed millions of tax dollars to the region's largest car dealer to expand yet again. They pledged $1 million to lure a Hobby Lobby even though it is in direct competition with a Michael's store that has been here for years. They bought property for $1 million, knocked down the building on it, prepared the site for development, then "sold" it to a developer for $10.

    That kind of favoritism has been running wild in my little town - a little town controlled entirely by people who call themselves Republicans.

    jdl51 , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:36 am
    "When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem."

    The problem is the industrialized disinformation machine that continues to spew hatred and lies. One side thinks it's the liberal media, and the other side thinks it's RW talk radio and Fox News. It's easy to figure out which one is the real problem. There are facts and there are internet rumors that are passed off as facts. Both can't be true. And even in the face of clear evidence, primarily one side continues to believe the rumors and lies. Can't argue with delusion.

    Bob K. , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:45 am
    Thank you, Mr. Merry,

    I have been waiting for you to step up to the plate since you took over as editor of "The American Conservative" and you have delivered!

    Anti-Empire , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:51 am
    This article makes some good points. Trump was elected fair and square and the case against him is straight out of fantasy land.
    BUT then there is the snotty rhetoric that Trump is "uncouth," the same sort of rhetoric employed by the elite New York Times.
    Frankly I do not care about Trump's table manners. I do care that he has sought detente 2.0 with Russia and has killed off the TPP, not only a lousy trade deal but also the economic limb of Hillary's military/economic assault (aka pivot) to China.
    So I dismiss charges that Trump is "unfit" or "lacks nearly all the characteristics or attributes that a president should have.". And I have little confidence in a writer who looks at things in such an arrogant way. That he is the new editor of The American Conservative is enough to make me reconsider the contributions I make to this journal. Pat Buchanan and Bill Kauffman, yes. Merry? I wonder.
    Sandra , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:54 am
    I don't think the abundance of evidence that members of the Trump team met with Russian officials during the campaign can be called "minor infractions against the president". These are certainly serious allegations. It was clear early in the Trump presidency that he was not surrounding himself with people capable of carrying out the vision he articulated in his campaign for restoring America's middle class. He made many picks from the ranks of the elites including his Vice President and Attorney General. His selection seemed to favor loyalty rather than building a team that could make the changes he campaigned on. His Treasury pick is straight from Wall Street and his foreign policy team is praised by the elites. Donald Trump is not the agent for change. You can't differentiate him from the elites because he surrounded himself with them.
    Vince Hill , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:01 am
    What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words.
    Anne M Erskine , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:04 am
    Written by a Never-Trump, this article is absolute BS concerning the fact that President Trump is "unfit" for the office of the presidency. The article is, however, absolutely correct about the elites who have thrown their middle finger in the face of WE THE PEOPLE of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC of the USA, but WE THE PEOPLE elected President Trump to drain the swamp and he will. The true enemy of the USA is the elected class in D.C. and their cronies like Buffet, Steyer, Gates and the Soros Democrat Marxist Party and the utter traitorous actions by Obama. President Trump has to rid us of all Obamaites and has to slam the RINO traitors to the ground. President Trump is perfectly fit to be president and certainly more so than some community organizer who hates the USA and works to destroy her. Merry's hatred of President trump is boundless and shows him to be among the elites of the "media," a terrible curse on the USA. Thank God for President Trump and for FLOTUS Melanie Trump who has returned dignity, grace, class, and beauty to the White House after eight years of hate-filled, resentful, nasty, and cloddish behavior by Michelle Obama who disrespected the American people, spending millions of American posterity hard-earned money on herself and her family. Where was your article about the corruption of Obama and his breaking of our laws and his utter and disgusting spitting on his oath to our Constitution, Merry?
    Andi Payne , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:07 am
    I am still confused how a billionaire was NOT considered 'elite' to the working class.. Does this not baffle anyone? OK, I get that America on both sides, left and right, is sick of getting screwed over by the elites. But Trump is no friend to the working man. He is only helping all his billionaire elite friends and creating practices that will hurt the working class who elected him, whether via healthcare reform or promising coal miners they can have their jobs back, when everyone knows that sector is dying. The rest of the world is getting ahead of us, in technology, infrastructure, renewable energy sources, etc. The divide between conservatives and liberals has become so ridiculous that no one cares about making the US a better place. Trump's laughable campaign slogan worked miracles in convincing voters, but I think everyone has sobered up to the dangers that Trump poses in so many ways. We might be tired of politicians in Washington, but if most of us are honest, this 'shake-up' is going to do a lot of damage. Maybe it's what we need in the long run to be able to change things, but all the laws and deregulation have only made the elite stronger. It makes companies bigger, and the working man poorly treated and expendable.
    Slugger , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:07 am
    Please help me understand. What remedies are you recommending? The reason I ask is because these accusations against a class of people, the elites, rather than against specific wrongful acts smack of Mao and the Cultural Revolution to me. I sense that some wish to see professors and newspaper editors working in fields with hand tools. I may have misread this posting, but Fran Macadam's comments sound like a call for at least a sharp turn to me.
    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:17 am
    Reflecting further.

    I'm not buying the "it's the elites" problem. An 'elite', more often than not, is someone who is using power in a way we don't like, along with that person's clique. This is akin to using the term, 'activist judges'.

    Ultimately, a democracy always gets the leaders it deserves. Once in a great while, it gets better leaders than it deserves. There will always be facilitators of our worst instincts but ultimately, people have a choice. If a democracy is dysfunctional, it's not because some 'elites' or 'deep state' have taken over everything. It's because the voters kept electing idiots and representatives that didn't truly represent their interests.

    SDS , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
    Not sure if Trucker46 is serious, or auditioning to write for "the ONION" ..
    Devinicus , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:38 am
    Regarding the history of immigration in the United States, the Census Bureau says that the post-1850 peak was in 1890 when 14.8% of residents were foreign born, followed closely by 1910 when 14.7% were foreign born.

    Pew estimates that the US will break these records around 2025. Soon we'll have to go back to the mid-1700s to find a period in American history with a level of immigration we will be experiencing in the near future.

    Omar , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:40 am
    Well written article. Thank you.
    bkh , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:41 am
    -Vince Hill said: "What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words."

    Those masses are not relevant to those "Elites" and are cannon fodder. The term "Deplorables" says it all. The masses are not worthy of any consideration. Those "Deplorables" are an obstacle to be eliminated for the greater good. You don't need shadow govt conspiracies to see this kind of stuff anymore. The blatant lies and manipulations from DC and the media originating from Dems and Repubs is there for all to see. The 2016 election cycle was a wake-up call. Neither candidate was fit to be a President. Both are crooked. Yet, the majority of sheep on both sides continue toward their slaughter. Trump may yet get us blown to bits, but I no longer care about saving the status quo. The majority of people have spoken in this this country and we have been broken for many Presidencies. The future of this nation, as is, is ugly, if one exists at all.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:44 am
    Mr. Trump is not the issue. And from what I have come to understand about Washington language from top to bottom, his language isn't the issue either, in my view.

    Whether he is unfit cannot even be addressed though I suspect he is, if one examines the long history of the office. I don't have any doubt that Mr Trump is an effective admin as head of state. As a non-politician, there may be some issues. And his policy and social positions may not square with my own. But that alone would not make him unfit. His temperament would not take unfit either. But having to sift through the emotional tantrums of so many in leadership, influence and power to make that assessment is a very tough slog.

    Now we have a secret source that indicates a Mr. Trump did something or other in pressing for an end of needless investigations, as any CEO might, if said investigations were hindering the effectiveness of his tenure. And clearly its a disruptive fire. The seed of which were laid immediately as it became clear that Mr Trump, now Pres Trump was a contender. There was talk of impeachment before the election, and while I appreciated the "heads up", it was disappointing that the agenda for the net four years was to impeachment a man even before he took office.

    I once said that Mr Trump was be given the royal "black treatment" and I stand by those comments. Everything he does, says, is a minefield. There are no mines, but there are explosions from multiple corners. I have to say, even some of the authors on TAC are are straining credulity, credibility with their "end of the world", "doom and gloom" commentary. The minefield, once again has not evidence, but rather, so and so said thus. There's nothing documented that Pres Trump has done anything to hinder anything about Russia or Gen Flynn. This type of scrutiny makes it impossible to do one's job.

    I have been in communication for a long long time. And while my life is but a wreck at the moment. I have had some successes in competitive speech, and coaching. When I did my master's degree, I was unfit for teaching as a grad assistant. Not because of a lack of skill, knowledge or expertise, but because by every measure I had. What made the post a total disaster was the scrutiny as if I I had never done anything of the kind. If you have been teaching a while, there are things you know that a grad just have a clue about. My adviser attempted to fit my roundness into a nonexistent square peg. The entire graduate program was a disaster and a disaster in every way. They simply had no clue how to manage someone who had long past graduate level knowledge or experience. And much to failure, I did, wouldn't, couldn't communicate that fact, though given the internal politics of the place, I doubt it would have mattered. The behaviors were at best dysfunctional at worst criminal. If I wasn't already highly suspicious, by the time I left, I was certainly distrustful. I was asked if I wanted to pursue legal redress - the idea of that mess has always been a route to be avoided, save for defense. "People are people, and sometimes they just do dumb stuff," was my attitude. I was probably incorrect, dumb, innocent or malicious it was deeply beyond the pail.

    Pres. Trump has entered an arena in which he has no respite from the attack or question of every aspect of his being and on every matter. While, a Pres should expect scrutiny, what he has been subjected is over Everest unreasonable and reasoned. The constant hyperbolic crisis mongering from people who supposedly have a better temperament, judiciousness, and higher moral code is a tad bit "funny".

    No. Humorous.

    What is in play and of deep concern are the repeated manufactured crisis to disrupt his tenure Crisis mongering that began shortly after 9/11 and has progressed with increasing speed, oddly enough when actual crisis have subsided. Aside form the economy, the country faces no "real" threat beyond securing the border.

    Given our rather carelessness action in the region of the middle east, we had better obey the security protocols prior to 9/11 any of which would have prevented the attack or severely diminished its success. Checking expired passports would have been helpful – devastating to the attackers.

    In Compton, Detroit, NYC, Tallahassee, Birmingham, there are hard working folks trying to figure out how they are going to compete against the immigrant who's labor is cheaper, who doesn't contribute to the community as much as they draw. They are trying to figure out how to be fair to their issues, without starving their own. They are doing everything possible to avoid being "deplorable" and always have. And yet the representatives of their locals are about dealing with muckraking needlessly.

    -----
    "Sad!"

    Boy. it's not a good sign when you are sad. Stay fiesty!

    Those in opposition made it clear where they stood before the election. And Mr. Trump has just started to climb this long hill.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:49 am
    There's no reason for the war to turn violent, we are some distance from that turn and even the suggestion is hard to hear.

    It suggests a state of threat that need not be aired. In many ways, this situation is airing out the problem, for those brave enough to acknowledge it.

    Though avoiding confrontation of any kind hasn't aided me much, I admit.

    • [May 19, 2017] The instrumental and transformation view of the benefits of imperialism is reflected in comments I once read by Charles deGaulle who, as I recall saw the massacre of the Gauls by Julius Caesar, and the integration of the Gauls into the Roman polity as an essential step towards the emergence of a modern Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it deprives them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism the best thing that happened to us. But this debate continues. ..."
    "... He who pays the piper calls the tune. ..."
    "... What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly is hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JA, May 18, 2017 at 08:02 PM

    The instrumental and transformation view of the benefits of imperialism is reflected in comments I once read by Charles deGaulle who, as I recall saw the massacre of the Gauls by Julius Caesar, and the integration of the Gauls into the Roman polity as an essential step towards the emergence of a modern Europe. [I wish I could find the reference].

    An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it deprives them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism the best thing that happened to us. But this debate continues.

    XXX, May 18, 2017 at 08:29 PM

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    I suspect that your citation is reasonably accurate, historically.

    What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly is hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ.

    [May 19, 2017] Is neo-imprealism about which Branko Milanovic talks just neoliberal neocolonialism?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Installing compliant regime using the forces of internal "fifth column" of neoliberalism (which, is some cases, consists predominantly of former communists like happened in the USSR and China ;-). Actually, a step from communism to neoliberalism for Communist elite ("nomenklatura") was easy as neoliberalism is "Trotskyism for the rich." If necessary/possible it removes democratically elected governments from the power by claiming that election are falsified and the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets they want to install). ..."
    "... After puppets came to power they mandate austerity, burden the country with debt most of which is stolen and repatriated to the West. The only new idea that neoliberals introduced in the old scenario of colonization is that the crisis for financial and political takeover can be manufactured and instead of psychical occupation of the colony you can use "comprador" regime and rule the country indirectly via financial mechanisms. This is the essence of Washington consensus. ..."
    May 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Is "neo-imperialism" the only path to development? [ in the current circumstances]

    libezkova, May 18, 2017 at 08:55 PM

    Yes, in a sense, "the rise of Asia" was a side effect of global neoliberal revolution. So the key here not imperialism per ce, but neoliberalism. Unfortunately it is missing from "questions to be asked" list and that diminished the value of the article.

    "(whence the origins of this transformation? the role of the nation-state and imperialism? the role of the bourgeois-led independence movements?)"

    Neo-imperialism (or, more correctly, neocolonialism) is intrinsically connected with neoliberalism and, by extension, with "casino capitalism" -- oversized role of financial sector under neoliberalism as the rent extraction mechanism (via "debt slavery"). It uses instead of old-fashion occupation of the country, political and financial takeover the countries in crisis.

    Installing compliant regime using the forces of internal "fifth column" of neoliberalism (which, is some cases, consists predominantly of former communists like happened in the USSR and China ;-). Actually, a step from communism to neoliberalism for Communist elite ("nomenklatura") was easy as neoliberalism is "Trotskyism for the rich." If necessary/possible it removes democratically elected governments from the power by claiming that election are falsified and the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets they want to install).

    After puppets came to power they mandate austerity, burden the country with debt most of which is stolen and repatriated to the West. The only new idea that neoliberals introduced in the old scenario of colonization is that the crisis for financial and political takeover can be manufactured and instead of psychical occupation of the colony you can use "comprador" regime and rule the country indirectly via financial mechanisms. This is the essence of Washington consensus.

    That make neocolonialism more sustainable as the illusion of sovereignty is preserved. For example for all practical purposes Greece is now a colony. But armed struggle against occupation forces will not happen as there is no physical occupation forces in the country. They are all virtual ;-)

    "Regime change" favorable to neoliberal globalization is what the idea of "color revolution" is about. It can occur even in the country that already has a brutal neocolonial neoliberal administration. Like was the case with Yanukovich regime in Ukraine. That means that we can't separate neocolonialism and neoliberal globalization. They are two sides of the same coin.

    Also the development is not equivalent to the growth of GDP, even if we use purchase parity method of calculation of GDP. Standard of living of population and the growth of GDP can be detached under neoliberalism. Thay are not the same thing.

    Simultaneously, like under classic imperialism, the population of the "host" county (the imperial power) suffers too, because it carries the increasing burden of maintaining and expanding of the empire. The current situation in the USA is clear example of this trend.

    We also clearly see the attempts to lower the level of income to subsistence level in the USA (Wal-Mart), so this part of Marxism still have some validity. It looks like neoliberalism is not that interested in maintaining "worker aristocracy" in the "host" country. It might be replaced by upper strata of "guard labor" and "national security parasites".

    Industrialization of China was an interesting historical event -- the result to three very improbable events.

    1. Voluntarily conversion of China leadership of Communist Party to neoliberalism ( Deng Xiaoping theory "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." )

    2. The USA successful attempt to play China against the USSR and Warsaw block.

    3. The neoliberal revolution in the USA itself, which removed the idea of sharing profits with working class (New Deal Capitalism), and opened the path to outsourcing first manufacturing and then services to the low wage countries, making China a very lucrative target for the transfer of manufacturing and wage arbitrage. Timewise it corresponded with retirement of the managerial class which fought in WWII and replacement of this generation with more technocratic and more "neoliberally brainwashed" boomers.

    Another interesting nuance is that out of "Asian tigers", only China can be viewed as nominally sovereign nation.

    Other countries are to various degrees vassals of the USA. And that puts strict limits to their growth. Actually Trump election might be a signal to those nations: "know you place".

    The idea that "Thus the seeds of the idea that imperialism may undermine class struggle in developed countries were sown and that had far reaching consequences." presuppose the working class, in classic Marxist tradition, has "revolutionary potential", the energy and the desire to overthrow the existing order.

    This part of Marxism proved to be false. It was the social-democratic parties which were key to mobilizing workers.

    This idea of the tremendous importance of the party for the modern society and that one party rule can stimulate economic development was actually inherited from Marxism by national socialism. Mussolini was a former prominent Italian social-democrat.

    The "iron rule of oligarchy" also severely undermined the Marxist idea of "socialist state" and the possibility of the rule of working class (and democracy as a political system -- Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy).

    It is rumored that close to his death and seeing the emergence of "nomenklatura" as a new ruling class in the Soviet Russia Lenin exclaimed "My God, what we have done !".

    [May 19, 2017] Is neo-imperialism the only path to development

    May 19, 2017 | glineq.blogspot.com
    As is well-known (or should be well-known) Marxism has gradually developed two approaches to imperialism. Marx's own position was (until the very last years of his life) essentially and unbendingly positive: imperialism, however brutal and disruptive, was the engine whereby more advanced social formation, namely capitalism, was introduced in and transformed more backward societies. Marx's own writings on the British conquest of India are fairly unambiguous in that respect. Engels' writings on the French conquest of Algeria are (as is usually the case when one compares Engels' and Marx's writing styles) even more "brutal". In that "classical" view, Western Europe, the United States and the "Third World" would all develop capitalistically, may relatively quickly come to the approximately same levels of development, and capitalism will then directly be replaced by socialism in all of them.

    This view depended crucially on two assumptions: that (1) the Western working class remain at the low level of income (subsistence) which would then (2) assure its continued revolutionary fervor. Assumption (1) was common to all 19 th century economists, was supported until the mid-19 th century by the observed evidence, and Marx was not an exception. But towards the end of the century, Engels had noticed the emergence of "workers' aristocracy" which blunted the edge of class conflict in Britain, and possibly other advanced countries. The increase in wages was "fed", Engels argued, from colonial profits realized by British capitalists. Although the increases were mere "crumbs from capitalists' table" (Engels) they exploded the theory of the "iron law of wages" and, collaterally, the revolutionary potential of the working class in the West. Thus the seeds of the idea that imperialism may undermine class struggle in developed countries were sown and that had far reaching consequences.

    Bill Warren's "Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism" (published in 1980; unfinished due to Warren's death) credits Lenin of the post-1914 vintage for the change (or rather criticizes him for it). In Lenin's "Imperialism " the monopoly capitalism having lost the vigor of free-market capitalism and having become "decrepit" was seen in need of foreign expansion (to maintain profits at earlier levels). This in turn led to imperialist struggle for territories that ended up in World War I. At the same time, working classes' relative material ease in developed countries made them abandon the revolutionary path and support "opportunistic" and nationalistic social-democratic parties (and their leaders, notably the "renegade" Kautsky). The struggle of the "peoples of the East" (as they were called in the first congress in Baku in 1920) against imperialism become integrated into an overall struggle against capitalism, and imperialism ceased to be seen as a dynamic precursor of the forthcoming socialism, but rather the extension of moribund capitalism. In Warren's words, "it is now not the character of capitalism that determines the progressiveness of imperialism, but the character of imperialism that determines the reactionary character of capitalism" (p. 47).

    This change of position had far-reaching consequences for the thinking of the left that Warren excoriates. It led to the theories of "core" and "periphery", "structural dependency" etc. (Frank, Amin, Cardoso, Prebisch). These theories, Warren argues, were wrong because they predicted faster growth if countries were to disengage from the dominant global system (which all proved to have been illusions-Warren is less sanguine on that than we can be now), and they had nothing to do with workers' struggle in the emerging economies because they reflected the interests of nationalist Third World bourgeoisies.

    Now, I wish I could write a very lengthy review of Warren's extremely stimulating book-which also contains many infuriating sections-but I will have to leave it for another time. (In the "infuriating area", Warren, for example, celebrates the increase of inequalities in developing countries such as the concentration of land ownership into the hands of latidundistas because he regards it as an indicator of adoption of more efficient capitalistic methods of production in agriculture, p. 207). His celebrations of inequality throughout the second part of the book-dealing with post-1945 developments-would make Friedman and Hayek blush!) But my point is not Warren's book as such but its very contemporary implications.

    It is directly relevant for the understanding of the rise of new capitalist economies in Asia. Richard Baldwin's recent book (reviewed here ), even if Baldwin does not make any allusions to either the classical Marxist position or to the dependency theory, clearly shows that the economic success of Asia was based on the use of capitalistic relations of production and inclusion in the global supply chains, that is in active participation in globalization. Not passive-but a participation that was sought after, desired. It is thus no accident that China has become the main champion of globalization today. Therefore, Asian success directly disproves the dependency theories and is in full agreement with the classical Marxist position about the revolutionary impact of capitalism, and by extension of "neo-imperialism", in less developed societies.

    This has enormous implications on how we view and try to explain dramatic shifts in economic power which have occurred in the past half-century (whence the origins of this transformation? the role of the nation-state and imperialism? the role of the bourgeois-led independence movements?) and how we see the developments ahead. I will not develop these issues now because my thinking is still evolving and I plan to lay it out in a book, but I think that, in trying to understand the changes in the modern world, the best we can do is to go to the literature and the debates from exactly one hundred years ago. (And Warren's book although of course much more recent has its roots in what was discussed then). Short of that I cannot see any broader narrative that makes sense of the epochal changes we are living through.

    [May 17, 2017] Why Did the FBI Leak the Comey Memo naked capitalism

    May 17, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a memo written by James Comey states that President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into General Flynn. Now, this was all about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. He had attended an RT � the Russian television network � dinner in Moscow, he apparently held some discussions there, he was paid for attending that dinner. He also did some lobbying on behalf of Turkey and was paid for that, and the investigation also has to do with whether Flynn has something to do with the alleged interference of the Russians in the American elections. And this is a big breach of etiquette for a president to More than etiquette, I suppose � protocol, even the law � to tell an FBI director not to investigate something. I guess that's illegal. Trump, of course, and the White House denies this.

    But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.

    Now joining us to talk about the Comey affair, the Trump affair, and just what is the issues in terms of the US-Russia relationship, is Robert English. Robert is a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California. He specializes in Russian and post-Soviet politics, US-Russian relations, and national security policy. He formerly worked for the US Department of Defense and the Committee for National Security, and has published widely in both academic and policy journals. Thanks very much for joining us, Robert.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Happy to be here.

    PAUL JAY: Okay, so every day another storm, another drama. First of all, what do you make of Maybe the most interesting thing in all of this Comey thing today isn't Trump asking him to stop the investigation; that's not a great shocker. The more interesting thing is somebody at the FBI who has access to the Comey memo reads it to a journalist at the New York Times. There's a lot of people out to get Trump here.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah, you're pointing to this larger problem, which is this chaos, this infighting, and not just in a sort of careerist bureaucratic way, but a kind of serious pitched battle between different factions � in this case, between those in the Trump administration who seem to want a fresh start with Russia, to try to begin cooperation on things like Syria, terrorism, and so forth, and those dead set against it, who are now using leaks and so forth to In part, to fight their battles. And so the bureaucratic, the nasty, the backstabbing, the leaking, is one area of issues, but you're pointing to this larger fundamental. Can we get along with Russia? Is it worth trying to reset relations? And even if he's not the best executor so far � and he's not � is Trump's basic idea of "We can get along with Russia, let's give it a try" a good one? And I happen to think it is; it's just being carried out awfully clumsily.

    PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think one needs to separate the intent of Trump for wanting better relation with Russia, which one can analyze, and the policy itself. The policy of having a détente, although why there even needs to be a détente is kind of a question mark But why is so much of the American foreign policy establishment, the political class, the military leadership, the vast majority of that whole stratum wants to maintain a very antagonistic position towards Russia, and why?

    ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, four or five reasons that all come together, pushing in this Russophobic direction. We've always had sort of unreconstructed Cold Warriors, people who never were easy with the new Russia, right? Zbigniew Brzezinski and people of that ilk, who wanted to just push Russia in a corner, take advantage of its weakness, never give it a chance. Then you have people in the military-industrial complex, for lack of a better term, whose vested interests lie in a continued rivalry, and continued arms-racing, and continued threat inflation. You have other people who normally would be liberal progressive, but they're so angry at Hillary Clinton's loss, they're so uncomprehending of how someone they see as vulgar and unqualified as Trump could get elected, that they're naturally unwilling to let go of this "the Russians hacked our election, the Russians got Trump elected" theme, and therefore, Russia is even bigger enemy than they would be otherwise. These and other strains all come together in a strange way. Some of this is the hard right, all right? Some of it is from the left, some is from the center. And across the board, we have ignorance. Ignorance of Russia.

    PAUL JAY: Now, in an article you wrote recently, you went through some of the history, and we're going to do another segment that digs into this history more in depth, but when you look at the history of the '90s, and Yeltsin, and the whole role of the United States in helping bring down the Soviet Union, the whole point of bringing down the Soviet Union, and standing Yeltsin up, and interfering in Russian elections to make sure Yeltsin wins, and so on, was to open Russia for privatization for American oligarchs. I don't think the idea was to do it for Russian oligarchs, but that's how it turned out. Is that part of what is making this section of the American oligarchs so angry about it all?

    ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, when people look at Russia today, they try to explain it in terms of one evil man, Putin, and that sort of conceals an assumption that if we could just get rid of Putin, everything would be better, and that Putin is the way he is � anti-American � because he's from the KGB. You don't need to go back to his youth or his time in intelligence to understand why he's very skeptical, why we have bad relations with Putin and all those around him. You don't have to go back to the '50s or '40s. You can go back just to the '90s, when we interfered in Russia, when we foisted dysfunctional economic policies on them, when we meddled in their elections repeatedly, and basically for an entire decade, we were handmaidens to a catastrophe � economic, political, social � that sowed the seeds of this resentment that continues to this day. It's a-

    PAUL JAY: Yeah, you mention in your article that the consequences of the '90s depression in Russia far surpassed anything in the '07-'08 recession in the United States.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: They far surpassed that. They even far surpassed anything in our own Great Depression of the early 1930s, of '29, '30, '31 � you know, the Great Depression, under Hoover and then Roosevelt. At that time, our economy contracted by about a quarter, and the slump lasted about three years before growth resumed. Russia's economy contracted almost by half, and the slump lasted an entire decade, and it resulted not just in widespread poverty, but millions of excess deaths, of suicides, of people dying of despair, of heart disease, of treatable illnesses caused by the strains, the This deep, unbelievable misery of that decade. It's no wonder that there is deep resentment towards the US, and this underlies a lot of the Putin elites' attitudes towards us. It's not something pathological, Putin being a bad guy. If you got rid of Putin tomorrow, the next guy who came along, the person most Russians would probably elect in democratic elections, wouldn't be so different. It wouldn't be another Yeltsin or pro-Western liberal, believe me.

    PAUL JAY: Well, even if everything they say about Putin is true, and I doubt and Quite sure not everything is true. If he is such a dictator, United States foreign policy has never had any trouble with dictators, as long as they're our dictators, so the thing drips with hypocrisy.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Hypocrisy and double standards all around are what Russians see, okay? I mean, where do you begin? Look at the recent The vote, the referendum in Crimea to secede from Ukraine, and of course, then Russia annexed it into Russian territory, and we find that outrageous, a violation of international law, and the Russians say, "Yeah, and what did you engineer in Kosovo? You yanked Kosovo out of Serbia, you caused Kosovo to secede from Serbia with no referendum, no international law. How is that different? Right? When it's your client state it's okay, but when it's ours, it's not?" And of course the list is a long one; we could spend all afternoon going through them. So the first thing we need to do is stop the sanctimony, and deal with Russia as an equal great power.

    But, you know, can I say one more thing about the '90s that connect it with what's going on today? In 1991, we had George Herbert Walker Bush in the White House. It was still the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was still in power for the rest of the year, and a warning came from our ambassador in Moscow, Jack Matlock, which was passed on to the White House. He had inside information from sources, from confidential sources, that a coup attempt was being planned. And, by the way, of course it happened in August of that year. That information came from our Ambassador Matlock, from his sources in Moscow, to the White House. George Bush had been instructed that this was highly sensitive, do not reveal the source of the information, keep it confidential. Bush fouled up, and within hours, he got on the phone to Moscow, a line that was open, monitored by the KGB, trying to reach Gorbachev, and he revealed the information, and he revealed the source, which went straight to the KGB. This was an unbelievable breach of confidentiality, dangerous, potentially deadly results, and the greatest irony is that George Herbert Walker Bush had been Director of the CIA before.

    Now, why am I telling this story? Obviously, my first point is, presidents have fouled up, and have declassified unwittingly, or sometimes for political purposes, highly sensitive information all the time. I'm not excusing what Trump did � it looks like he was very sloppy � but the first thing to note is it's not unusual, this happens a lot. The second thing, and let's talk about this, is sharing information intelligence with the Russians. Guys, we've been doing this for nearly 20 years. After 9/11, the Russians offered us valuable intelligence on the Taliban, on Afghanistan, to help us fight back against bin Laden, and we've been exchanging intelligence on terrorists ever since. A lot of people wish we'd exchange more information; we might have prevented the Boston bombing. So this hysteria about sharing intelligence with our adversary, no, we are cooperating with Russia because we have a common enemy.

    PAUL JAY: Now, I said in the beginning that I thought we should separate Trump's intent from a policy, which seems more rational, not to treat Russia as such an adversary, and try to work both in Syria and other places, negotiate more things out. But when you do look at the side of intent, I don't think you can negate or forget about the kind of historic ties that Trump has with Russian oligarchs. Some people suggest Russian Mafia. Tillerson's energy play, they would love sanctions lifted on Russia, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be lifted, but the motive here is they want to do a massive play in the energy sector. So it's not I don't think we should forget about what drives Trump and his circle around him, which is they have a very big fossil fuel agenda and a money-making agenda. On the other hand, that doesn't mean the policy towards Russia isn't rational. I mean, what do you I don't know if you agree or not.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, yeah, you're right, those are important points, and whether you agree or not with people ranging from Ron Wyden to Lindsey Graham, they're all saying "follow the money," and in this case, I think they're right. All these probes, and all these suspicions that the Trump team colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election, that they were cooperating, even coordinating with the Russians on the hacking, and then the release, I don't believe it. It could be true � you know, I don't have access to the evidence � but to me, it seems much more likely that what will turn up instead are financial crimes or malfeasance. People taking speaker's fees, people consulting with oligarchs, people aiding You know, helping with the elections with shady people, and depositing the money in the Cayman Islands or in Cypriot banks, not declaring income. I think that's what we're likely to find; I think that's probably what Flynn is guilty of. But the more serious charge of collusion with an adversary, even of treason to undermine our election, I doubt it very much. You're right to look at the energy business money, and sort of big-business oligarchic efforts to just get rich together.

    PAUL JAY: Yeah, because this is so much tied up with partisan politics. The Democratic Party leadership, you know, Schumer types, they just want to wound Trump any way they can, and this is a good way to cut some knives there, to get their knives out. But the real story is the financial shenanigans, and maybe Flynn was on to that. I'm not Excuse me, not Flynn, Comey. Maybe Comey was on to that, and maybe that's where this thing will lead. That's where Trump needs to fear, not the Flynn stuff.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: I think you're probably right, and again, I can only infer what might be going on, what evidence there might be, based on the subpoenas that are going out, but what we've heard says yeah, financial records, all these documents, evidence of I mean, let's go back to this issue that was the scandal of the week about five scandals ago, which means five days ago, and that was that The reason that Flynn was fired, you'll recall that after the election but before the inauguration, he met with the Russian ambassador, and they discussed all kinds of policy issues, including the possibility of moving towards removing the sanctions. When he got back to the White House, apparently he told Pence that they talked about other things, but he didn't admit that the sanctions subject had come up. Therefore, he lied; therefore, he was fired. And Sally Yates, right, the From the Attorney General's office, has made an important point that she briefed the White House on this, she warned that Flynn had been compromised, because the Russians had something on him now.

    Okay, technically they did, but come on, guys, hold on a second. Trump was about to be inaugurated, right? It wasn't as if he somehow � Flynn � could undermine a policy of Obama's when there were about five minutes left in the Obama administration. Secondly, the Russians and the Trump administration wanted openly � it was no secret � to move towards a removal of sanctions if they could find cooperation on Ukraine, cooperation on terror in the Middle East. There's no secret here. Therefore, what did the Russians have on Flynn that they could have blackmailed him with? How was he compromised? Yeah, because they'd caught him in a fib, but big deal. You see how these things are being exaggerated. No doubt Flynn broke the rules, he told a lie, but it's not a lie It's not the kind of information in the Russians' possession that's the equivalent of catching him in bed with another woman, or [inaudible 00:16:53].

    PAUL JAY: And you have to even believe that he did tell the lie, because we're being told he didn't tell Pence. We don't know if he's falling on his sword to some extent here in order to protect Pence. I mean, who knows the truth of any of that? And the rest of what he did, as far as we know, with the Russians is all public. There's a video of him speaking at an RT interview in Moscow that took place at the same time as this dinner that he was paid to attend on the 10th anniversary of RT, where he sits near Putin. There's nothing secret about any of this; this stuff's been out on YouTube for, like, ages.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: So what you have here when you add them up is a sequence of events or small misdeeds: telling a fib about this here, Trump leaking classified information there. None of them are of the magnitude that they're being portrayed with in the media, but when you string them together, it sounds like a hysterical series of

    PAUL JAY: So I can understand the Democratic Party, but in terms of what people call the permanent state, the deep state, they're very engaged in this. The leaks from the FBI We still don't, I don't think, unless I missed something, this thing where he Trump talks to the Russian ambassador and the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and gives this Reveals this intelligence. Well, how do we know that? I mean, who's in that room that leaked that? Or, apparently, after it took place in Washington, some White House staffers phone the NSA and the CIA Well, you think they've got to call the heads of these organizations at this kind of level of information. So who's leaking that stuff? The state apparatus � CIA, FBI, maybe NSA � they're really antagonistic to this Trump administration. What is that about?

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Again, that's where we started, with not only the battle over "Should we try to improve relations with Russia, or are they incorrigible foes?" That's one thing, but now this sort of bureaucratic infighting, the use of leaks, of innuendo. And again, Trump gives them the fuel to do so with these continual misdeeds and misstatements. That's another whole arena of battle, and it's not healthy, right, to have And it's his fault too. He went to war with the intelligence community on day one. But this is so dysfunctional. It's causing us much more harm than the Russians ever could, and

    PAUL JAY: We're going to keep this conversation going in a future segment. I do want to add Anyone who watches The Real News knows this already. I mean, I think the Trump/Pence administration is going to prove to be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney. I think it's extremely dangerous what they have in mind in terms of foreign policy. But all that being said, let's concentrate on the real stuff. Trump's in Saudi Arabia, and they're planning some bad stuff in the Middle East, and targeting of Iran, and back here, we're focusing on really what should be a sideline soap opera.

    ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah. The series, the daily scandals that we're talking about � the Comey letter today, the leak to the Russians yesterday, on and on � are kind of distracting us from the bigger picture. Not only the question of, you know, what are our common interests, if any, with Russia, and can we seriously work towards them, but also, what are we going to do in the Middle East, and what are we doing in East Asia? These pivotal foreign policy strategic issues aren't getting much attention because of the daily soap opera. You're absolutely right.

    Let me just add at the end here � I know we're running out of time � I've noted the accidental clumsy careless leak that could've had tragic consequences of the first Bush president. We might also note that the second Bush presidency, that administration leaked like a sieve from, you know, exaggerated false intelligence on Iraq to the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, when it suited their purposes. And the Obama administration wasn't a lot better. People like McCain and others were furious at some of the leaks, whether it was the Stuxnet cyber war tactic that was used against Iran, to a whole series of other military facts that were leaked selectively by the Obama administration to serve their purposes. Let's just remember this context. Mistaken leaks, strategic leaks, dishonest leaks go on all the time in Washington, and against that backdrop, let's not fall off the cliff here over Trump sharing some intel about terror attacks with the Russians, about our common enemy, the Islamic State in Syria.

    PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. Anonymous , May 17, 2017 at 2:09 am

    Some issues that are not mentioned. First, the 100 billion dollar a year cost of sanctions which gives Putin and the oligarchs incentive to do a lot of things. Second, the track record of journalists, human rights advocates and attorneys being killed in Russia. Third, the funds paid to Trump from oligarchs via over priced real estate deals.
    Guess they all fall into the "strategic issues aren't getting much attention".
    If the Putin administration or oligarchs are found to have acted illegally in the US it will be a different discussion.

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 08, 2017] NYT Mag: Silicon Valley Has Been Transformed into Center of Anti-Trump Resistance

    May 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    The article , written by Farhad Manjoo, is titled "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug?" and poses the question: "Mark Zuckerberg now acknowledges the dangerous side of the social revolution he helped start. But is the most powerful tool for connection in human history capable of adapting to the world it created?"

    The article discusses the mood in Silicon Valley days before Donald Trump's inauguration, describing the general mood as "grim." But Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly quite positive about the future, describing 2016 as an "interesting year for us [Facebook]."

    The article later describes Silicon Valley's detachment from real world events, saying, "In Silicon Valley, current events tend to fade into the background. The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, the financial crisis and every recent presidential election occurred, for the tech industry, on some parallel but distant timeline divorced from the everyday business of digitizing the world."

    But the election of Donald Trump caused many in Silicon Valley to suddenly take notice of the political world, "Then Donald Trump won. In the 17 years I've spent covering Silicon Valley, I've never seen anything shake the place like his victory," Manjoo writes. "In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump resistance and fear."

    "A week after the election, one start-up founder sent me a private message on Twitter: 'I think it's worse than I thought,' he wrote. 'Originally I thought 18 months. I've cut that in half,'" Manjoo recalls. "Until what? 'Apocalypse. End of the world.'"

    The description of Silicon Valley as the "center of anti-Trump resistance" is unsurprising, Google employees and executives previously held rallies at Google offices across the United States in protest of President Trump's temporary travel halt from nations associated with terrorism.

    [May 06, 2017] Americas Top Scientists Confirm U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them. ..."
    "... I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later ..."
    "... A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so. ..."
    "... Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so. ..."
    "... Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." ..."
    May 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a study, on 1 March 2017 , which opened:

    The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing - boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.

    It continues:

    Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

    This study was co-authored by America's top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore Postol. Their report continues:

    This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.
    Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability - a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred.

    The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be likeiier from Russia than from the U.S.:

    Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)

    In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had - and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might remain during that passive party's continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and result quickly in suicide, if that national leader's own surviving countrymen don't execute him before he kills himself.

    Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation's leader in that type of situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person's decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn't soon die from the ordinary causes before then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching that danger.

    The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential source, such as " which has largely been concealed from the general public " and " policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed ," and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation's chief strategic objective and of the main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan. In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan. Typically in such a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about 'success', especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated and no longer a threat.

    The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance, on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence - the prior system, for deterrence, having been called "MAD" for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a 'winner' and a 'loser' in such a conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being 'winnable', was the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations, Foreign Affairs and International Security , both formally introducing the concept of "Nuclear Primacy" or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia . Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above (the article that's linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.

    This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history, and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time; because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible. This is where we are at the present time; and, ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result.

    This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will - regardless of which side strikes first. The decision - either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America's decade-plus preparation to do so - can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter, then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he'll have to be the one to strike first. He didn't place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let's hope that the U.S. will stand down the threat, now.

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

    Carlton Meyer , Website May 5, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT \n

    100 Words What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! Read More
    Intelligent Dasein , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT \n
    100 Words I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

    Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. Read More

    Miro23 , May 5, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT \n
    300 Words It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs – calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Read More

    van gogh , May 5, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT \n
    I was enjoying the article until I came across the paragraph mentioning "humiliation" as a factor in deciding to launch a nuclear strike. Yeah I can see the point, it's better not to get humiliated but it's okay to destroy the life in our planet in the process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 8:14 am GMT \n
    200 Words http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/trump-nuclear-commanders-237956

    A global coalition of former military leaders and diplomats who had responsibility over nuclear weapons is launching a "shadow security council" to offer advice to world leaders on how to reduce what they consider to be the growing danger of a nuclear conflict fueled by the rhetoric of President Donald Trump and destabilizing moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    I wonder what these "destabilizing moves" are. Today we have launch-on-warning, precise nukes, stealth delivery services, hacks in hardware and software, weird stuff in orbit, and "missile defense against Iran" in Europe which can be repurposed in a second to attack Russia. Unless the airheads notice that the "destabilizing moves" come from the US, there won't be much progress.

    We survived the MAD phase only through tremendous luck, there were more computer errors, brown pants moments and lost nukes than one would like to think possible. Let's not waste this break that God has given us.

    Remember that once the missile is out of the silo, it can't be called back. No remote defuse, sorry. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Miro23 , May 5, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT \n
    100 Words Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.

    They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at full $ while they kept their bonuses).

    If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Read More Agree: Z-man

    Nils , May 5, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT \n
    200 Words If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.

    Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them – you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe, and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by local animosity – maritime disputes, arming India, etc).

    Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation – called living on the same planet – where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.

    Unless you don't have nuclear weapons then your country and lore is up for the taking on a whim. Read More

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Well. Now we know what constitutes the true Obama legacy: "The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred."
    This is in addition to the Obama-approved mess on the Russian borders with Ukraine ("ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result") and the Israel-pimped war in Syria where Russians have been fighting ISIS along with the legitimate government of Syria, while Israel and the US were caught on helping the ISIS- and Al Qaeda-affiliated "freedom fighters."
    Is there any honest and knowledgeable person in a vicinity of the "deciders" to explain them the consequences of a high-level radiation for their grandkids? The deciders care not about the hundreds of thousands of other-peoples' children that died as a result of US-led "humanitarian interventions," but maybe they could get some resemblance of empathy rush when picturing their own progeny hit by a nuclear force? Idiots. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Quartermaster , May 5, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT \n
    One does not "conquer" anything with nukes. All you can do is destroy. Read More
    Jake , May 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans, insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant damage to the US or the world?

    Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.

    America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.

    Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear. Read More

    Randal , May 5, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT \n
    100 Words The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of "mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming first strike.

    So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats" Read More

    Randal , May 5, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT \n
    @Quartermaster One does not "conquer" anything with nukes. All you can do is destroy. Go tell it to the Japanese. Read More
    MarkU , May 5, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT \n
    200 Words A great article by Eric Zuesse, the best I have seen on the subject. A devastating nuclear war is almost inevitable if the situation is allowed to persist. There were several nearly catastrophic incidents in the last cold war when warning times were much more generous. Similar incidents, in the near future would likely be game over for human civilisation and even the human race itself.

    It really doesn't matter whether the US/European oligarchy is really planning to nuke Russia and/or China or not, the situation is just as dangerous either way. The setting up of what is evidently a first strike capability while simultaneously degrading their potential opponents warning times is well nigh suicidal. One could hope that there is someone in the US/NATO military who is not too functionally autistic to see things from the other guys point of view but I doubt it. If such a person existed, they might reflect on the fact that if the roles were reversed, most of their colleagues would be clamouring for a first strike of their own before the missile "defence" is fully operational.

    Finally, it doesn't even matter whether the missile "defence" works or not. Unless both sides know it doesn't work, and can also be sure that the other side knows that it doesn't work, and also that it can't be made to work, it is just as dangerous. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Johann , May 5, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Americans, war and mass casualties perfect together. Just keep their beer, drugs and professional sports . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility," – yes, this is a bitter truth.
    "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite," indeed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    peterike , May 5, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
    While I don't doubt that the GloboHomo Zio cabal wants very much to destroy Russia, and is crazy and blood thirsty enough to use nukes to do it, this hysteria about "ending all life on earth" is nonsense. Read More Agree: Alden Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Frankly, it's about time "compellence" replaced deterrence in dealing with Russia.

    For all his faults, Putin seems more or less sane, but he's already 64 years old. When Russia has its next succession crisis (they're good at this stuff), the new incumbent may be much less tractable and dangerous.

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists likes its Doomsday Clock, but the actual clock is ticking and not counting fictitious minutes before midnight. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    another fred , May 5, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.

    We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze" has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.

    How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? Read More

    Erebus , May 5, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

    Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command

    Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid of skulls. Read More

    Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT \n
    @Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests is secure. Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Read More
    Pandos , May 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Miro23 – Brilliant X! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Pandos , May 5, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT \n
    Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke exchange. It is their fault.

    Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration – a lie. Rip that shield from their hands. Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

    Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

    In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple – unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness – once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks – there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback – in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

    As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this – it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. Read More

    Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT \n
    100 Words This "investigative historian" confects his bad dream out of very little substance. Quotes from the respectable enough Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists plus a great deal of imagination and major omissions allow him to paint a fantastic picture of raving lunatics thinking of "conquering" or "invading" Russia. (Yes he did use those words despite positing a scenario in which the Dr. Strangeloves would wipe out Rusdia with a first strike! His psychic medium clearly has forgotten to consilt the ghosts of Napoleon and Hitler).

    One major omission is to note what a quick search for "super fuze" immediately discloses, namely that the US Navy's upgrade is already old news and largely complete so far as the increase in capacity that Zuesse describes is concerned.

    Another gigantic hole is the absence of mention of China. This is kid's journalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm GMT \n
    @Erebus

    Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

    Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command

    Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid of skulls. Useless quote without a believable source and still needs to have the context provided. Read More

    Anonymous White Male , May 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially."

    Do you actually believe that if the US launched a nuclear strike against Russia that there would be no US casualties? Wouldn't that "physically affect" the idiot masses that apparently you are superior to morally? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    bluedog , May 5, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT \n
    @Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. And so are we so what's your point? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Anonymous White Male , May 5, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT \n
    100 Words I don't understand how after 70 years of using "nuclear weapons" as a bludgeon to keep the mindless slaves of the West in line anyone would actually think that there is any real possibility of a nuclear war. The media has been used to induce fear in people that don't think. Start thinking! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder "

    Apparently you haven't heard of what England, France and other colonial nations had been doing in centuries past, and heck, even up till now (Libya, anyone?).

    Americans are simply following the psychopathic instinct from their European forefathers. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @another fred Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.

    We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze" has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.

    How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? For an explanation, read my previous comment and this one.

    START treaties have limited the number of missiles on both sides, at a time when super-fusing did not exist. This means that each side had enough missiles to destroy a percentage of the missiles of the other side (probably around 40-50%), but not all of them, thus MAD. With super-fusing, the side which strikes first can destroy a much higher percentage of retaliatory missiles on fixed and mobile launchers (90-95%) and still have some left over to threaten civilians in large cities, especially if ABMD can destroy all of the remaining 5-10% of retaliatory missiles.

    The hardest to destroy will remain the submarine launched missiles, but US military feel confident that they are tracking all Russian nuclear missile submarines with their attack submarines (and all the new and noisy Chinese submarines as well) and they could destroy them all on command.

    On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more. Read More

    Wade , May 5, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT \n
    300 Words

    In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan.

    Reading statements like this one, and other observations by Philip Giraldi, have reluctantly made me into a conspiracy minded person when it comes to politics. After all, does anyone seriously believe that the pretentious, metro-sexual Barry Obama entertained any such "Dr. Evil" like plots to concur the world prior to being sworn in as POTUS? Of course he didn't. He, even less than Trump, probably had no idea what he was getting himself into by running for president. It must've been a shocker for both of these men when they found out just how much potentially damaging intel that the CIA and NSA has on them through perfectly legal NSA spying. Would the CIA assassinate a president who got in the way of America's interests (as defined by them)? Maybe, but why would they need to?

    The Deep State is in complete control of our foreign policy now. Our democracy and freedom were already largely lost due to giant asymmetries in knowledge between the US Citizenry and elected officials on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other. "Knowledge is power" as they say. This state of affairs was gradually imposed on an unsuspecting public through such legislative gems as the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and the Patriot Act. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Jake , May 5, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Pandos Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke exchange. It is their fault.

    Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration - a lie. Rip that shield from their hands. You have hit upon something that is extremely important, and studiously avoided by most: the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The worst of the Arabs are Saudi Arabians. The worst of the Sunnis are Saudi Arabians (and on average, Sunnis are worse than Shites). No doubt, the worst ruling caab in the Middle East,. whether royal family or political party (such as Likud), is the House of Saud.

    Israel plus the House of Saud, backed by Uncle Sam = potentially endless horrors Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
    200 Words One of the WWII planners was Frankfurter, also the writer of the Lend Lease Law that enabled Roosevelt to give war aid to any country.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983

    After Hitler began deporting jews to concentration camps, one of them escaped, and was smuggled tot the USA, the Vichy France, Spain, Portugal route.
    This jew told Frankfurter what was going on.
    Frankfurter answered 'I do not believe one word you're saying'.

    Much later Frankfurter explained 'I did not say he was lying, I said I did not believe him'.
    In 1939 Hitler threatened jews with 'ausrottung', the exact meaning of this word then is debated, 'if they again started a world war'.

    My interpretation of the Frankfurter statements is that he had not expected Hitler to carry out his threat.

    So I am not all convinced that neocons will not start a nuclear war.
    As Jimmy Carter said 'those that cause wars, expect not to be hurt by it'. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Jake Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans, insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant damage to the US or the world?

    Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.

    America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.

    Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear. This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
    The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
    In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but advancing in leaps and bouts).

    The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites" in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any given time.

    Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. Read More

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. "Russia is pretty fascist."

    Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land of the "chosen" handlers?
    For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
    Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665 Read More

    22pp22 , May 5, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
    @Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests is secure. I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be. Read More
    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the authors of these dire policy statements:

    Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown - For 2 Professors, Like Father, Like Son

    Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating - rather, demanding that Georgetown agree to create– the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch

    Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban." https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Read More

    Max Payne , May 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT \n
    @Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

    In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

    As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something and remarket it? Read More

    jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Kiza Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but advancing in leaps and bouts).

    The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites" in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any given time.

    Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
    Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised from the real ones.
    Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2′s.
    Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
    Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
    Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.

    US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
    Adolf shared that goal

    Adolf did NOT "share the goal" of "conquest and enslavement of mankind."
    Adolf's goal was nationalistic, not global; the clue is hidden in plain sight:

    National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)

    National Socialist German Workers' Party

    US agenda is (among other things) to force other nations to conduct their finances under US-Federal Reserve/fiat-currency – debt-basis; Germany under NSDAP determined to reject that system and established control of its own economy and system of finance. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sebastian Puettmann , May 5, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @annamaria "Russia is pretty fascist."

    Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land of the "chosen" handlers?
    For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
    Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665 If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

    By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US? Read More

    reiner Tor , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Randal The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of "mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming first strike.

    So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats" ...... Even that wouldn't be enough.

    Even if the US government was installing a huge global missile system while simultaneously building a potent first-strike capability, we'd only have to worry if they also had a history of attacking many other countries without provocation. Also if their political elite was pushing for military confrontation with Russia, like proposing to implement no-fly zones in Syria where Russian planes are flying missions (legally), with some members of the US establishment (people like Senator McCain) even calling for the downing of Russian planes if needed to accomplish that. Even in that hypothetical scenario it would only be really really dangerous if in the past some random senior US general (someone like General Wesley Clark) had already proposed to attack Russian troops – otherwise we could rely on the sanity of the generals to prevent such insanity.

    Fortunately, none of the above ever happened. It's all fantasy, folks. Nothing to see here. Read More LOL: Randal Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    reiner Tor , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT \n
    300 Words I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

    I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later , or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

    Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

    The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Read More

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT \n
    200 Words "US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    Is this "a good Russian propaganda," Sebastian? In his case you need to address your grievances directly to the US Congress.

    " Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?"
    Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic, ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement with Israeli brass.

    " maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation."
    A truly amazing observation!
    Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Che Guava , May 5, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT \n
    100 Words I am very much appreciating this article and many comments.

    Having some military time, at peace, thankfully, and interest in arcane English words, I am knowing the diff.between material and materiel, fuze and fuse, etc.

    What this article and all of the comments are to lacking is a definition of 'super-fuze'.

    I am suspecting that it is just a mis-use of the word 'fuze'.

    If Mr. Zuess or a commentor could providing a definition, it would be an aid to comprehension. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Alden , May 5, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.

    They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at full $ while they kept their bonuses).

    If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Absolutely right. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @22pp22 I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.

    I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.

    From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:

    "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779

    Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"

    When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head, carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher - Child - British propagandists - New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.

    American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous venues –

    We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .

    As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

    The Conquest of the United States by Britain with a little help from her friends (by Stephen Sniegoski)

    and

    American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies by Ron Unz

    I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them to hate, and then kill, another entire population.

    "Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -

    Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT \n
    @annamaria This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
    The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
    In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Do you read the links you put in your posts? Read More

    Agent76 , May 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

    In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards towards Russia.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

    El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

    By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?

    But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU.

    comedygold.jpg

    NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration, imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That would be awkward.

    While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe ), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening. Read More

    El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT \n
    @utu Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski ???

    Bin Laden 6'5" Brzezinski 5'5"

    This is not Bin Laden on this picture with Brzezinski! It looks like a guy with Pakistani or Indian paratrooper markings demonstrating the use of Russian RPD machine gun.

    Monsieur Laden would probably only see visitors in one of his construction contractor offices. No need for actual guns except when striking a pose (he was partial to AKS-74U as I remember) Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT \n
    @El Dato

    But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU.
    comedygold.jpg

    NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration, imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That would be awkward.

    While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening. In fact NATO already trains jointly with Israel, and Israel has narrow ties with the EU.
    Israel also participates in the European Song Contest.
    El Al uses Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, as its main base in Europe. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , May 5, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Nils If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.

    Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them - you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe, and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by local animosity - maritime disputes, arming India, etc).

    Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation - called living on the same planet - where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.

    Unless you don't have nuclear weapons...then your country and lore is up for the taking on a whim. US is losing military ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the Russian, while USA is losing economic ground in SE Asia, Africa, South America and North America to the Chinese, are you saying the super-fuze is a fake news? And the American understood they are being check-mated by the Russian and Chinese? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kurt van Ghoye , May 5, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @SolontoCroesus Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the authors of these dire policy statements:

    Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown -- For 2 Professors, Like Father, Like Son

    Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating -- rather, demanding that Georgetown agree to create-- the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch

    Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban." https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Good to know, SolontoCroesus. I'm sure we'll remember to thank that cuddly pair of parasites when they manage to kill a few tens of millions of Russians to get their 21st century war groove going. It's really too bad about Christianity having bred the spirit of vengeance out of the white man. Do Russians thirst for revenge? Does anyone? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Randal , May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

    I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

    Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

    The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Probably correct, but as the events surrounding Able Archer in 1983 highlight it's not whether the Yanks have such intentions that matters, but whether the Russians think they might have them.

    Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through?

    The ones who thought it through, like Kissinger, cautioned against it and were proved correct.

    Though in truth, when it comes to the neocon types who really knows where the incompetence ends and the evil begins? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    european born , May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
    in 1999 war against Serbia 7 smart bombs hit Bulgaria[ nato nation] why are you guys so sure if instead of Russia USA nukes Ukraine or Poland.
    [MORE] Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    jacques sheete , May 5, 2017 at 8:50 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
    Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
    Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.

    Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.

    Where did you hear that?

    FYI: "Adolph" faced some real threats, not phony ones like we use as excuses to go to war.

    Since yer on a first name basis with the dude, you oughta know the truth.

    Here's a primer.:

    " this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions "

    - Murray Rothbard 1966

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , May 5, 2017 at 8:50 pm GMT \n
    Dec 31, 2013 Edward Bernays called it *PROPAGANDA*

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    jacques sheete , May 5, 2017 at 8:53 pm GMT \n
    @SolontoCroesus

    I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
    From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:

    "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779
    Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"

    When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head, carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher -- Child -- British propagandists -- New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.

    American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous venues --

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo

    We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .

    As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

    The Conquest of the United States by Britain ... with a little help from her friends (by Stephen Sniegoski)

    and

    American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies by Ron Unz

    I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them to hate, and then kill, another entire population.

    "Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -

    As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

    WW1 as well. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT \n
    @Anonymous Do you read the links you put in your posts? What's wrong with these two links?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

    By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US? This post was intended for you, Sebastian:

    "US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    Is this "a good Russian propaganda," Sebastian? In his case you need to address your grievances directly to the US Congress.

    " Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?"
    Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic, ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement with Israeli brass. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

    " maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation."
    A truly amazing observation!
    Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT \n
    @reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

    I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

    Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

    The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."

    Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Read More

    Realist , May 5, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

    Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."

    The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards it's a snap. Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Max Payne This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something and remarket it? Not exactly. The super-fuse is an envelope around the target which is underground, in which the explosion results in the destruction of the target even if the missile has not hit the ground within the radius of destruction for its potency. The optimum destruction envelope around the target looks like a church bell, as one would expect. Therefore, it is in air-burst detonation, but this is not the essence of the super-fusing technique. An air-burst too early or too late, still does not destroy the target . The essence is to "save" a missile which would have missed the target and still destroy the underground silo. A computer on-board the missile decides when to detonate the missile for its existing trajectory. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT \n
    400 Words @El Dato Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.

    Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.

    No, it's the prequel:

    Mackinder -> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)

    Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things - listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)

    In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan, Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's theories.

    http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/

    The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:

    "Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson, a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him (and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from Germany's point of view:

    It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press ** the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.

    In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."

    Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany - and Germany alone - the "militaristic" desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the "huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction," Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal of the unalloyed virtue of American life.

    { ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
    In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of the entire world.)

    ** Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues – Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:09 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Anon

    On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more.
    I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.

    How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And if so where is the intelligence value in such?

    Are you a movie script writer? Have you ever heard of counter-intelligence? Yes, maybe, never?

    Who cares if you "won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses"? You have made zero contribution to the debate on his topic and I recognise a troll who is too ready for personal insults from the peak of his/her superior knowledge which does not exist.

    My first and last answer to you, I have no time for pompous trolls currently fighting to overwhelm unz commenting section with their sewage. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @jilles dykstra "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
    Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised from the real ones.
    Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2's. Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof. I do not dispute what you wrote – the Russians would not be keeping their mobile launchers in plain sight, certainly not parading them around the country ready for photo- and video-shoot, just like the BUK battery according to the utterly ridiculous Dutch-lead Investigation of MH17 shoot-down.

    However, the issue is always – how much of "own" damage are the US/NATO leaders ready to accept? Somehow, my feeling is that if the bombs are not falling on Tel Aviv the damage becomes acceptable.

    Lately, there has been a very powerful push in the media to disapprove nuclear winter and radiation damage to the population. Some commenters here are trying the same tack. In other words, if you are not killed by the nuclear explosion, you will be ok , so say the warmongers, those who claim the destruction of the planet are fools , again so say the warmongers. I have no doubt that "someone" is trying to sell the advantages of the nuclear war to the population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @annamaria "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."

    Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Let us look at it this way – MAD was a destruction of the two opponents, were the one which strikes first is destroyed say 60% and the one which was struck first is destroyed 90%. This is looking only at the effect of the explosions, not at any residual effects.

    With new technologies, the one which strikes first, under the best case scenario, could be destroyed only 10% or less whilst the enemy struck first is still destroyed 90%. I believe that this is the new strategic proposition acceptable to TPTB. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    KA , May 6, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT \n
    @Anon

    On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more.
    I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses. How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And if so where is the intelligence value in such?

    Are you a movie script writer? I do not understand the technological side . But nobody has lost his shirt by underestimating the intelligence and morality of American leadership .
    Your question – ' have these talks been reported to the general public' tells me . What does it tell ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 6, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT \n
    100 Words @SolontoCroesus

    Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
    No, it's the prequel:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYRr5GtcczE

    Mackinder ---> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)

    Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things -- listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGSq2rvucQ

    In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan, Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's theories.
    http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/
    The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:

    "Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson, a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him (and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from Germany's point of view:
    It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press** the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
    In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
    Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany -- and Germany alone -- the "militaristic" desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the "huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction," Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal of the unalloyed virtue of American life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiXs_e-ekI

    { ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
    In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of the entire world.)

    **Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues -- I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.

    Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. Read More

    Seraphim , May 6, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT \n
    @22pp22 I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be. Why would you? They are sufficiently evil as they are. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Seraphim , May 6, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT \n
    @Wizard of Oz Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Again your ignorance of history tricks you into talking nonsense. Read More
    Anon 2 , May 6, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT \n
    300 Words @Carlton Meyer What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! A little history: Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia refused to withdraw from the Kaliningrad Region in the early 1990s, and to this day it effectively remains a Russian colony. Russia also initially refused to withdraw its troops from western Poland, and finally did so in stages until all troops were withdrawn by 1994-5. The conclusion is: Russia cannot be trusted, which, of course, is something that any child in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine learns based on the Russian behavior in the last 300 years.

    The area known today as Kaliningrad Oblast' was conquered by the (predominantly Germanic) Teutonic Knights in the 13th century from Sambians (related to Lithuanians) who were then effectively ethnically cleansed. The upshot is that neither Russia nor Germany can make the original claim to that piece of land (located between Poland and Lithuania). In a sane and rational world the Kaliningrad region would be demilitarized and made into an independent country (with Lithuania perhaps having the greatest claim to the territory) but when was the last time humans behaved rationally in foreign affairs?

    The U.S./NATO has over 300 military installations in Germany, incl. nuclear weapons. It makes little difference whether missiles are in western Poland or eastern Germany. The territory is so small that Berlin lies right next to the Polish border. Russia correspondingly placed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad which are capable of hitting Berlin. So now we have a balance of terror. This seems to be the highest solution that humans in our current primitive state of consciousness are capable of. To quote Trump: sad Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Intelligent Dasein , Website May 6, 2017 at 1:54 am GMT \n
    @Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

    In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

    As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. I've already read the spin, thank you. My point was that I do not believe it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Erebus , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Realist " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."

    The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards...it's a snap. The war in Afghanistan is all about preventing / disrupting Eurasian integration. Afghanistan is a good spot to do that as, in addition to being centrally located it is also militarily weak. It borders the important 'Stans into which disruption could exported, and even offers a corridor to China.

    The US saw success there, but it's fleeting. It did temporarily disrupt Eurasian integration, but this is overshadowed by its failure to set up a political structure capable of sustaining, much less expanding the disruption in its absence. Unless the US invests a politically unacceptable amount of resources, it's stuck there playing a spoiler's game and will continue to do so until something happens to oust it. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
    @Kiza I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.

    Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. thank you for reading.

    [May 05, 2017] How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room by the Saker

    I think the problem with this article is that the author can't distinguish were Neoliberalism starts and ends and were Anglo Zionism (which we will understand simply as Neocon ideology starts and ends. both are variants of Trotskyism -- "Trotskyism for the rich" to be exact. Also it is economic interest that trump all others, so that alliance of the USA and Israel is pragmatic and is about USA access to ME oil
    They definitely highly intersect, but they are still distinct political ideas ("The USA global empire uber alles in case of neocons; translational elites uber alles in case of neoliberals) and somewhat distinct ideologies. I am not convinced that Cheney cabals (which included Paul Wolfiwitz and several other neocons) was only or mostly pro-Israel political faction. And if tail really wags the dog -- the idea that Israel determine foreign policy of the USA -- is true of not. It can be be that empire has its own dynamics and Israel is just a convenient and valuable ally for now, much like Saudies
    Notable quotes:
    "... To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity). ..."
    "... Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader ..."
    "... as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise ..."
    "... My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression. ..."
    "... doubleplusgoodthinking ..."
    "... The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists ŕ la ..."
    "... There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist . Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet. ..."
    "... Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. ..."
    "... Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity. ..."
    "... The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide ..."
    "... Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies. ..."
    "... Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. ..."
    "... The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. ..."
    "... we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress ..."
    "... I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and " ass-kissing little chickenshit s " ŕ la ..."
    "... ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. ..."
    "... Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. ..."
    "... at the same time ..."
    "... ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. ..."
    "... To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do. ..."
    "... They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. ..."
    "... I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses ..."
    "... Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. ..."
    "... From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan , many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality. ..."
    "... The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian] ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say ..."
    "... Hollywood movies proclaimed that " greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. ..."
    "... Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. ..."
    "... for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values ..."
    "... You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. ..."
    "... Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. ..."
    "... ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ..."
    "... Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. ..."
    "... I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it. ..."
    "... That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them. ..."
    "... Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. ..."
    "... US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. ..."
    "... If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names, addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible. I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney. ..."
    "... Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world: Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules. ..."
    "... In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response to the attack on the USS Liberty. ..."
    "... One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well. ..."
    "... But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more. ..."
    "... So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right – it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism. ..."
    "... You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies. ..."
    "... With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East. ..."
    "... There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment. The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central power in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about the Empire, not about Americans. ..."
    "... My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than his son in law Jared. ..."
    "... Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to end. Highly credible, in my opinion. ..."
    "... The Zionist attempt to control language. The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY ..."
    "... But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!! ..."
    "... It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of "Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off ..."
    "... Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured by a parasitoid. ..."
    "... How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel? We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. ..."
    "... Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies belong to that plan. ..."
    "... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation " ..."
    "... when I read that I thought you might have meant Charlie Reese. he used to write for the Orlando Sentinel in Florida, until ((they)) ran him out ..."
    "... Doesn't matter. It was a political defeat, and war is an extension of politics. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.unz.com
    219 Comments

    First, a painful, but needed, clarification: Basement crazies . Neocons . Zionists . Israel Lobbyists . Judaics . Jews . Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial "elephant in the room". For some this bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make us run away from that topic. I won't. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic right now. So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.

    First, terminology. For those who have not seen it, please read my article " Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important ". Second, please read my friend Gilad Atzmon's article " Jews, Judaism & Jewishness " (or, even better, please read his seminal book The Wondering Who ). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion. He writes "I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity . I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)". I very much include them in my discussion. However, I also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that " Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist " (those having any doubts about Jews not being a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand's excellent book " The Invention of the Jewish People "). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism as spelled out in my " moderation policies ":

    Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all "brothers in Adam", that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

    To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity).

    Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader ). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

    Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing: no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or "sensitivity" – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31). So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism, then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish identity and ideology.

    Now let's come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that "Jews by birth only", what Alain Soral in France calls "the everyday Jews", are not included in this list. Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression.

    [Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite). By the way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].

    The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists ŕ la Cheney or McCain. These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress, most of academia, etc . These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the "nationalist" or "patriotic" wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically staged a color revolution against Trump . There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist . Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet.

    Making sense of the crazies

    Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of "logic" in this case) of self-deluded racists can be a difficult exercise. But when the "basement crazies" (reminder: the term from from here ) are basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this exercise becomes crucial, vital for the survival of the mentally sane. I will now try to outline the reasons behind the "new" Trump policies using two examples: Syria and Russia.

    Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. And that, in plain English, means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (an old Israeli dream). Even better, the Israelis know Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh is a mortal threat to Hezbollah. By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long, bloody and never ending war in Lebanon and Syria. While their northern neighbors would be plugged into maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent civilians under whatever pretext. Remember how the Israelis watched in total delight how their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014? With Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to. Finally, and last but most definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out. For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even today ) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.

    Russia . Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian. Particularly the ex-Trotskyists turned Neocons. I have explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere and I won't repeat it all here. You just need to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the first Bolshevik government (which was 80%-85% Jews; don't believe me? Then listen to Putin himself ). I have already discussed " The ancient spiritual roots of russophobia " in a past article and I have also explain what rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called "Judaism" nowadays) is little more than an "anti-Christianity "(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you). The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide Nazis (isn't this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today.

    In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate Jews. While you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly expressed in the media (in fact, 'hate speech' is illegal in Russia). One thing to keep in mind is that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially amongst those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country (those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion here ). Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different attitude than the attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out of Russia as soon as possible. Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies.

    Making sense of Trump

    I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings. There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli, but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA. I doubt that Trump even knows where the Golan Heights even are. He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies. Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. More generally, the guy is really not ideological. The best evidence is his goofy idea of building a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution.

    The same goes for his views on Russia. He probably figured out something along these lines: "Putin is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let's join forces". The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely will). Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to "drain the swamp" but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid). But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along (I still don't believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress ), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood. I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable and spineless figures military Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and " ass-kissing little chickenshit s " ŕ la Petraeus. Not good. Not good at all. As for the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) "three letter agencies soup", it appears that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream up. Again. Not good. Not good at all.

    Living with ZOG

    ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG I will reply this: believe me, I am even more upset about having to admit that ZOG is real than you are: I really don't care for racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me. But, alas, they are also right! Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. I just feel that committing the crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely. At the very least, asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is an extremely important exercise all by itself. Hence, today I ZOG-away

    Some might argue with the "occupation" part of the label. Okay – what would you call a regime which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of the people and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal treaty)? Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon. I think that it all began with Reagan and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton. Others think that it all began with Kennedy. Whatever may be the case, what is clear is that election after election Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars . It is true that most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest of the planet spends of defense. Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligences agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with 2-5. Lastly, most Americans do believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet. True. But at the same time , they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there. Most Americans also would prefer that the money spent aboard on "defending democracy" (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions of Americans in need in the USA. As the southern rock band Lynyrd Snynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville, Florida) once put it in their songs " Things goin' on ":

    Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
    Too much money been spent upon the moon
    Well, until they make it right
    I hope they never sleep at night
    They better make some changes
    And do it soon

    Soon? That song was written in 1978! And since then, nothing has changed. If anything, things got worse, much worse.

    Houston, we got a problem

    ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform, is now sending a " very powerful armada " to the coast of the DPRK. Powerful as this armada might be, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens. You think that I am exaggerating? Business Insider estimated in 2010 that it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul . Why? Because the DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict , that's why. Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces. Wikipedia says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems. Two days a go a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20'000 artillery pieces. Whatever thee exact figure, suffice to say that it is "a lot".

    The DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities . Of special importance here are the roughly 200'000 North Korean special forces. Oh sure, these 200'000 are not US Green Beret or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and create chaos and destroy key objectives. You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10'000+ artillery pieces and 200'000 special forces? Exactly, nothing at all.

    And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?

    No, I did not. First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for delivery on a missile. Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another. I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply drive a nuke down near Seoul on a simple army truck and blow it up. Or bring it in a container ship somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up there. One neat trick would be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl Vinson and then blow it up. Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these ships would be total. To be honest, this mostly Tom Clancy stuff, in real warfare I don't think that the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack. But you never know, necessity is the mother of invention , as the British like to say.

    I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face. What if they decided that they needed to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed US targets all over the place). Then what? How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the block? Could he decide to "punish" the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat airbase in Syria? And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un's reaction be?

    To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do.

    Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing about of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the US. This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result. In direct contrast, both Kim Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to themselves!) that they are tough guys. Exactly the most dangerous kind of mindset you want in any nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.

    So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons? Everything.

    They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. And yet now is is playing a crazy game of "nuclear chicken" with the DPRK. Does that sound like the "real Trump" to you? Maybe – but not to me. All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to "play empire", to show that, as Obama liked to say, the USA is the " indispensable nation ". God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier strike groups involved in the "solving" of this problem!

    [Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference in Astana, Kazakhstan. Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real. The said indispensable nation therefore "invited itself" by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and, having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage of the negotiations about the future of Syria. In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]

    So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.

    I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses . As with all the other forms of crimethink , I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably in public, and you will get used to it. First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it is also great fun). Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream " the emperor has no clothes ". Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe and more follow. The key thing here is not to allow ideological "sacred cows" to roam around your intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking. Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations, not human ideological constructs.

    Where do we go from here?

    Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. The good news is that those who were sincere in their opposition to war are now openly speaking about Trump great betrayal. From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan , many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality.

    The key issue here is how do we bring together those who are still capable of thought? I think that a minimalist agenda we can all agree upon could be composed of the following points:

    Peace/pacifism International law Human and civil rights Democracy Pluralism Anti-racism Ethics and morality

    Sounds harmless? It ain't, I assure you. ZOG can only survive by violence, terror and war. Furthermore, the AngloZionist Empire cannot abide by any principles of international law. As for human and civil right, once quick look at the Patriot Act (which was already ready by the time the 9/11 false flag operation was executed) will tell you how ZOG feels about these issues. More proof? How about the entire "fake news" canard? How about the new levels of censorship in YouTube, Facebook or Google? Don't you see that this is simply a frontal attack on free speech and the First Amendment?! What about Black Lives Matter – is that not a perfect pretext to justify more police powers and a further militarization of police forces? To think that the Zionists care about human or civil rights is a joke! Just read what the Uber-Zionist and [putative] human right lawyer, the great Alan Dershowitz writes about torture, Israel or free speech (for Norman Finkelstein). Heck, just read what ultra-liberal super-mega human righter (well, after he returned to civilian life) and ex-President Jimmy Carter writes about Israel -- Or look at the policies of the Bolshevik regime in Russia. It it pretty clear that these guys not only don't give a damn about human or civil right, but that they are deeply offended and outraged when they are told that they cannot violate these rights.

    What about democracy? How can that be a intellectual weapon? Simple – you show that every time the people (in the USA or Europe) voted for X they got Y. Or they were told to re-vote and re-vote and re-vote again and again until, finally, the Y won. That is a clear lack of democracy. So if you say that you want to restore democracy, you are basically advocating regime-change, but nicely wrapped into a "good" ideological wrapper. Western democracies are profoundly anti-democratic. Show it!

    Pluralism? Same deal. All this takes is to prove that the western society has become a "mono-ideological" society were real dissent is simply not tolerated and were real pluralism is completely ascent from the public discourse. Demand that the enemies of the system be given equal time on air and always make sure that you give the supporters of the system equal time on media outlets you (we) control. Then ask them to compare. This is exactly what Russia is doing nowadays (see here if you are interested). Western democracies are profoundly anti-pluralistic. Again, show it!

    Anti-racism. Should be obvious to the reader by now. Denounce, reject and attack any idea which gives any group any special status. Force your opponents to fess up to the fact that what they really want when they claim to struggle for "equality" is a special status for their single-issue minority. Reject any and all special interest groups and, especially, reject the notion that democracy is about defending the minority against the majority. In reality, minorities are always much more driven and motivated by a single issue which is why a coalition of minorities inevitably comes to power. What the world needs is the exact opposite: a democracy which would protect the majority against the minorities. Oh, sure, they will fight you on this one, but since you are right this is an intellectual argument you ought to be capable of winning pretty easily (just remember, don't let accusations of crimethink freeze you in terror).

    Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality.

    The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian] ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say .

    Hollywood movies proclaimed that " greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. All I will say that that rehabilitating notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, healthy and natural versus unnatural and pathological is a great legal way (at least so far) to fight the Empire. Ditto for sexual morality and family. There is a reason why all Hollywood movies inevitably present only divorced or sexually promiscuous heroes: they are trying to destroy the natural family unit because they *correctly* identify the traditional family unit as a threat to the AngloZionist order. Likewise, there is also a reason why all the western elites are constantly plagued by accusations of pedophilia and other sexual scandals. One Russian commentator, Vitalii Tretiakov, recently hilariously paraphrased the old communist slogan and declared "naturals of all countries – come to Russia" [in modern Russian "naturals" is the antonym of "homosexual"). He was joking, of course, but he was also making a serious point: Russia has become the only country which dares to openly uphold the core values of Christianity and Islam (that, of course, only adds to the Ziocon's hatred of Russia).

    [ Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. I don't think that this is sustainable for too long, Russia will either become more religious or more secularized, but for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values ]

    You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. And look at the alternatives:

    Organizing political parties does not work in a system where money determine the outcome. "Direct action" does not work in a system which treats libertarians and ecologists as potential terrorists. Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. Civil disobedience does not work in a regime which has no problem having the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet. Running for office does not work in a regime which selects for spinelessness, immorality and, above all, subservience. Even running away abroad does not work when dealing with an Empire which has 700-1000 (depends on how you count) military bases worldwide and which will bomb the crap out of any government which strives at even a modicum of true sovereignty.

    The only other option is "internal exile", when you build yourself you own inner world of spiritual and intellectual freedom and you basically "live there" with no external signs of you having "fled" the Empire's ugly reality. But if nuclear-tipped ICBMs start flying no amount of "internal exile" will protect you, not even if you combine that internal exile with with a life far away in the boonies.

    Orthodox Christian eschatology teaches that the End Times are inevitable. However, the Fathers also teach that we can push the End Times back by our collective actions, be it in the form of prayers or in the form of an open resistance to Evil in our world. I have three children, 1 girl and 2 boys, and I feel like I owe it to them to fight to make the world they will have to live even marginally better.

    ... ... ..

    nsa, April 17, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT

    ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.

    exiled off mainstreet, April 17, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT • 100 Words

    Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. I'm not sure it is internationally recognized, though the US, as an Israeli acolyte as indicated by the article in spades, may have done so at some point.

    Cyrano , April 17, 2017 at 2:44 am GMT

    Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.

    That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image as eternal victims.

    People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.

    WorkingClass, April 17, 2017 at 4:20 am GMT /p>

    If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names, addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible. I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney.

    Well done Saker. Please keep up the good work.

    Anon, April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world: Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules.

    jacques sheete , April 17, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT
    @Cyrano

    But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.

    Nice try, but what have you to say about the originators of the Zionist project?

    P.S.: In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response to the attack on the USS Liberty.

    One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well.

    Mark Green, April 17, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT

    This is a very thoughtful article. The Saker covers a lot of ground. Basically, he has provided his readers with not only a highly perceptive overview, but a blueprint from which they can begin resisting ZOG (or ZIG) tyranny. And let's make no mistake about it: ZOG exists and its impact is immense.

    But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more.

    The Saker also correctly notes that the distorting influence of Zionism has become too apparent to deny–even though it is, at the same time, nearly invisible; as it operates in plain sight under various pseudonyms, disguises and false pretenses.

    Indeed, its influence remains mostly unrecognized and it is therefore unresisted. For now.

    Indeed, even Trump–after only months in office–has fallen under its clever spell. We must therefore strive to examine, discuss, critique and resist this extra-national force of malevolence. Step one: Identify the source.

    The intellectual and culture-wide power of ZOG emanates in great part via our mainstream media. The mind-numbing and destructive impact of ZOG in Western media must be understood and unmasked.

    Fran Macadam, April 18, 2017 at 2:13 am GMT

    When you're right you're right. Logic like this is what leads the paranoiacs to think Russkis are taking over! When you make good sense, it can't help but "control" minds.

    One of the saddest developments, to a former implacable Cold Warrior and anticommunist, is that when by a miracle (yes, I count it that) the Russians ended communism by their own choice, without shots being fired, our side did not respond honorably (at least the ones at the commanding heights of our society.)

    Like your description of what Trump thought, "Hey Russia's fighting ISIS, let's have them take care of it and save us the trouble" I'm a simple guy too who'd rather see the destructive waste of war money instead be spent on infrastructure for our folks.

    I think of "House of the Dead" where the picture of the prisoners waiting for release through the coming of Christ, is a picture of us poor prisoners, but still of faith, waiting in this world too. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

    CalDre, April 18, 2017 at 2:56 am GMT

    @Cyrano

    Wow, where to start when someone claims white is black .

    It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around.

    So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right – it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism.

    US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it.

    That's not the case. The Jews were turned away because the Jewish Establishment/Zionists ordered the US to turn them back. Why? Because they wanted them to go to Israel to rob the Palestinians of their land instead. So it was not the Nazis the US was afraid of (then or now), but the Jewish oligarchs.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    There is not to this day any "overwhelming" or even "underwhelming" evidence of the Holohoax. Soviets made a bunch of propaganda out of the (labor) camps in large part to get back at Germany for the terrible losses the Soviets suffered, as well as the huge embarrassment when the Nazis revealed the Soviet crimes in Katlyn Forest. However when in the early 1990s Gorbachev released the notorious Auschwitz "death books", it turns out hardly any Jews were killed, and none by gassings, rather the vast majority of the dead succumbed to typhus (typhus being carried by lice, and Zyklon-B, the chemical Germany is (falsely) accused of using to murder Jews by the millions, was actually used to kill lice and thereby save Jews in the camps).

    utu, April 18, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT

    But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along

    It's possible that Trump did not even know that he was their plant but at some point after psychological profiling of him and assessing all leverages available to them to pry and prod him it was decided he will be just fine for the job. That's why he was allowed to win the election. The anti-Trump color revolution conducted by the so-called liberal left was a crucial part from the arsenal of the leverages. In the end it worked out beautifully for them. Gen. Flynn was not too bright to realize what hit him but Bannon is perhaps the only guy, in the good guys camp, who knows what is really going on. I am just wondering why he is still there. Perhaps they are forcing him to stay for the sake of the deluded iron electorate of Trump to prolong their delusion.

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

    they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there

    You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies.

    With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East.

    This was a new task for the Empire. So everything goes according to the plan, e.g. Iraq war goals were 100% accomplished. There is no more state of Iraq. Iraq will no pose a thread to anybody and Israel in particular. There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment. The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central power in the Middle East.

    Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about the Empire, not about Americans.

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 6:54 am GMT
    The best Saker's essay so far, the most inspired and the most identifiable. Just two quick notes from me.

    First, the ZOG/ZIG is so ubiquitous and powerful that the past election with Trump against Hillary was really a duel between pro-Trump young Zionists and the pro-Hillary old Zionists, in other words it was a generational change among the Masters (it was also a change in who will profit from political power). Since Trump turned to the Dark Side, I have realised that Jared was always there, even during the election, as an éminence grise and he pulled Trump's strings a forced a switch from election rhetoric to post-election reality. I have no doubt that Jared is the man behind the man, except that he also must have a fairly powerful Zionist base behind him.

    Second, Saker just like Mr Giraldi has become a magnet for all and sundry Hasbara trolls, obviously because both are the most prominent exposers of the ZOG/ZIG. It is important to remember that all Western Governments are ZOG/ZIG, without exception. Only BRICS countries appear free at the moment, despite 1000 military basis of the global ZOG/ZIG.

    Truth , April 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT
    @Anonymous

    Trump is being blackmailed.

    My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than his son in law Jared.

    He could have coerced her into doing something stupid on camera like group sex or being blacked and little Jared would not think twice to use this to control a weak man like Trump.

    Translation from "alt-rightish" into English:

    "Ive been a dupe and a stupid sucker for the last 2 1/2 years, and I need to believe that somehow the Jooz corrupted and bent this fine American hero to their own will in two months, instead of acknowledging the obvious truth that he was a weak, pathetic asset, and a literal as well as figurative, cocksucker, all along."

    You're welcome

    Tha Philosopher , April 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT
    I don't know if you wrote this as a response to my comment some time back arguing you were ignoring the elephant in the room, but this article reflects my thoughts more or less on Zion.

    I would add the historical record of Zion from Pharoah, the catacombs under Rome, to Spain, to Edwardian England, Tsarist Russia and so on is a record much like a locust. You have to wonder where all the 'persecution' comes from. Where the causuality?

    Its seeks economic surplus.

    And yes, they are missing the part of the brain associated with white high empathy and 'fair play' as Jayman has mentioned. They studied that weakness in Tavistock to find these pavlonian words like 'rac-ism' and when designing the themes in their movies and the fiction work they publish.

    The way to defeat Zion is to say the Necromancers name. Say it. If you say whats going on, the power of the Illusion and the fraud subsists entirely. No violence is needed. Repeat no violence is needed. Just say it. Bring it up in a discussion about politics politely and with evidence. The higher IQ people you meet will cotton on when you anchor the pattern recognition.

    They are the real 1%, they cannot govern with enlightened chattel. This is why philosophy, psychology, economics, history, anthropology, biology, and so on have been debased into slogans in the academy.

    In time, they will come after your daughters and mothers and sisters and turn them into whores. They will send your sons to war. They will fleece your pension funds.

    The truth, is that the most persecuted race of man in history – with a notable minority of followers of truth like the editor of this webzine -Mr Unz, Mr Sanders, Mr Marx and so on – is that there is a number who are essentially a very high IQ version of the mafia.

    Tha Philosopher , April 18, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT
    • 100 Words My own reading leads me to identify the following as the Elders of Zion:

    Steve Schwarzmann
    Paul Singer
    Robert Rubin
    David Rubenstein
    Summer Rothstein
    Evelyn Rothschild
    Stephen Friedman
    Elliot Abrams

    There are some more. Put them on a map and draw the links between them and their agents. Khordovsky gave his money to Rothschild to mind after the 1990s pillaging of Russia when Putin imprisoned him.

    Ohhh they hate Putin because he stopped them in the 90s more than anything. Khordovsky was trying to buy a media outlet.

    Also the Protocols may be based on a satire but as Lord Syndenham mentioned in the Times 100 years ago, it was a spooky blueprint for the Bolshevik revolution .and the EU.

    Tha Philosopher , April 18, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
    You can tell the puppets by their policies

    Lena Dunham social policy for jewish social freedom
    Milton Autism on economics to stop redistribution to the goyim
    Kristol on foreign policy for Israel's world domination.

    e.g Tony Blair, Macron, Cameroon, Merkel, Juncker, Bush, Clinton etc etc.

    There is no difference. They are all the same party.

    Zion.

    Uncle Davy , April 19, 2017 at 6:25 am GMT
    @Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.

    That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image as eternal victims.

    People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. With no disrespect Cyrano, you may need to read the 1996 report 'A Clean Break'
    - and you'll quickly discover its the zionist entity that is the tail that wags the American dog. The zionist entity is not limited to the geographical borders of the state of Israel, either.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    Fran Macadam , • Website April 19, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT
    Before blaming "The Jews" for the ills of the world it would behoove everyone to take a good long hard look in the mirror. If you think you get an affirmative answer to "Who is the most beautiful of all?" you are living in a fairy tale.
    Deeply Concerned , April 19, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT
    • 100 Words May I add that calling for a worldwide demonstration on a preannouced day (similar to the one against W's Iraq war) is critically needed. The slogan of this demonstration should be "ANY US CITIZEN WHO PUTS THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL ABOVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE US IS – A TRAITOR . ANYONE WHO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, DEFEND A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR". Traitor is the key word in my opinion and it should be the rallying word.
    Vires , April 19, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.

    That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.

    Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda." They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps, the US decided to change their tune.

    Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image as eternal victims.

    People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. Why are you trying to conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference between the two concepts?

    It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.

    Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.

    It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around

    When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average "Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?

    If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting their claims:

    John Mearsheimer
    R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
    Chicago University

    Stephen Walt
    Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
    Harvard University

    Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more detailed book, refuting your claims.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjoisrX36zTAhVIJlAKHbf5Bm4QFghAMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmearsheimer.uchicago.edu%2Fpdfs%2FIsraelLobby.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFlVQO8EGLPxZsbik8QZaH4vQ15Cw

    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

    Are you familiar with their work? Are you rejecting their claims?

    If yes, on what are you basing your rebuttal and what is your background?

    Or are you trying to frame the blogger and everyone concerned with the subject as old Jew-haters and anti-semites?

    Now, if after reading the Saker's post, the only thing you understood was:

    The Saker: "The Jews" are to blame for the ills of the world folks

    Then I would recommend you should seriously improve your English, at least reading comprehension skills – perhaps some online courses – before commenting and making a fool of yourself again publicly.

    Cyrano , April 19, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Vires Why are you trying to conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference between the two concepts?

    It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.

    Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.


    It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around
    When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average "Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?

    If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting their claims:

    John Mearsheimer
    R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
    Chicago University

    Stephen Walt
    Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
    Harvard University

    Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more detailed book, refuting your claims.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjoisrX36zTAhVIJlAKHbf5Bm4QFghAMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmearsheimer.uchicago.edu%2Fpdfs%2FIsraelLobby.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFlVQO8EGLPxZsbik8QZaH4vQ15Cw

    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

    What is your background, and on what are you basing your claims?

    Have you published an official rebuttal?

    Or is your theory just a "hunch"? I am just a writer, I don't have any agenda and I call the things as I see them. I don't buy the theory of the all-powerful Zionist lobby steering the American foreign policy either. Why? Because it makes no sense. Sure there is such a lobby, but US allows it to exist because it suits their interests. They (US establishment) are the ones responsible, not the Israel lobby.

    If all anyone had to do in order to influence US government – was to form a lobby – then during the cold war there would have been a communist lobby in Washington, financed by the USSR. They would have poured billions of dollars, and not only the cold war could have ended quickly, but maybe today America would have been communist. Do you see where I am going with this? US government allows lobbies to exist only after they comply with their interests. They are the initiators of policies, not lobbies. Have a nice day.

    Cyrano, April 20, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT

    • 100 Word\

    @Vires

    You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because you make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of evil Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world, bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into the abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to me, keep on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about the Jewish lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured out.

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 4:44 am GMT
    Inevitably, somebody always volunteers to carry water, down the dark self-serving spiritual path.

    "Israel Benefits as World Loses"
    source: https://www.sott.net/article/268125-Israel-benefits-as-world-loses

    "True Cost of Israel"
    source: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    "History of the House of Rothschild"
    source: http://rense.com/general88/hist.htm

    Greasy William , April 20, 2017 at 6:18 am GMT

    Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.

    Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We like to mock Russian nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you. Okay, maybe we do hate Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.

    And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.

    I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving!

    ThereisaGod , April 20, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT
    Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to end. Highly credible, in my opinion.
    Wally , April 20, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT
    @Greasy William
    Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.
    Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We like to mock Russian nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you. Okay, maybe we do hate Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.

    And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.

    I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving! The True Cost of Israel
    Forced U.S. taxpayers money goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    and:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language. The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf

    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Anonymous, April 20, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT

    @Kiza

    "Only BRICS countries appear free at the moment "

    Apparently you haven't heard of the long amorous relationship between the Zionists and the I in BRICS.

    Agent76 , April 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT
    Apr 13, 2017 Empire Files: Silencing Palestine – Prison & Repression

    Israel's occupation of the West Bank is an internationally-recognized human rights crime-but those being impacted are harshly punished for not only acts of resistance, but even mere advocacy for their rights.

    wow , April 20, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT
    When Trump basically fellated AIPAC during his campaign it worried me. But I thought maybe just maybe, Trump was playing the Jews ..this article in all it's glory suggests I am very wrong.

    That any potential president has to genuflect to Israel and Jews is the saddest thing in American History. You can almost wish it would all implode. A hard reset minus Jewish whining and control would be a true utopia.

    Stonehands , April 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
    @Cyrano You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because you make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of evil Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world, bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into the abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to me, keep on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about the Jewish lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured out. Jew finance capitalists [ the master money manipulators] and their cohort in MEDIA are most certainly jewish.. Who the hell do you think promotes all this homo rights crap? It's not so much the jew Svengali -but you- the rube in the mirror, who will have to be dealt with first when the lights go out..
    Bruce Marshall , April 20, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT
    But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!!

    It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of "Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off
    World War III.

    http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_10-19/2017-15/pdf/02-03_4415.pdf

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:18 pm GMT

    @Cyrano

    " you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. "

    Don't you imply that "so much propaganda in US" is anti-Zionist? If yes, then you have no idea about MSM in the US. Just to give you a hint, try to google this name: Helen Thomas, specifically a story of her private conversation with a Jewish man (who happened to be a born informer). Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured by a parasitoid.

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT
    @Quartermaster And so was Russia's annexation of Crimea. You don't think Saker would want to call attention to such things do you?

    How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel? We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. Tell us, when did the Golan Heights belong to Israel?

    Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies belong to that plan.

    The ziocons' cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazis is another story. "Never again," indeed.

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
    @biz

    In the Middle Ages, antisemitism defined Jews as a religious group and focused on their religious separateness.

    In the more secular era of Dreyfus and the Nazis and Nasser, antisemitism defined Jews as an ethnic group and focused on their ethnic separateness.

    Now that we are in an era which celebrates group identity and views it as a virtue, antisemitism focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.

    Fascinating.

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
    @biz

    " antisemitism focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.states "

    The article is about ziocons and it emphasizes, specifically, that conflating Jews and Zionists is dishonest. You need to read the article before making your generalizations.

    It was the Israelis that enjoyed the bombing of civilians in Israel-occupied Gaza by the "most moral" idiots of IDF. Palestinian children died in hundreds. White phosphorus was used by Israelis. https://friendsofpalestine.wordpress.com/resources-and-readings/image-galleries/photos-of-israeli-white-phosphorus-attacks-on-un-schools-in-gaza/ So much for "never again."

    Considering the number of synagogues in the US and the prominence of ziocons among policy-makers in the US, please tell us, who exactly "denies Jews their ethnic or religious identity." Have you heard about Wolfowitz, Feith, and Kagans? How about Nuland-Kagan fraternizing with neo-Nazis? Still OK? https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

    annamaria , April 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT
    @Quartermaster And so was Russia's annexation of Crimea. You don't think Saker would want to call attention to such things do you? Oded Yinon' plan for creating Eretz Israel: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
    Jus' Sayin'... , April 20, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT
    @nsa

    ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.

    Zionist Infested Government! Brilliant! I'm going to start using this term.

    Anyone who's spent any time inside the beltway quickly realizes that AngloZionists – the Saker's term is really useful if one wants to accurately and concisely summarize these people, their ideology, and their ultimate loyalties – infest from top to bottom the three branches of the federal government, all the supporting bureaucracies, and all the parasitic lobbying groups, consultants, foundations, think tanks, etc., that wield less official powers. Their proportional presence in Washington is many orders of magnitude greater than their proportion in the general population and their power is magnified by their informally shared ideologies and goals.

    Not many of these people are actually aware of the harm they are causing. Most are fundamentally decent people. Some I count as close friends. Yet the combined power these people wield and the varying levels of allegiance they bear to foreign powers whose interests are inimical to those of the USA and its citizens make them, considered en masse, an existential threat to this country, to world peace, and to international law and order.

    jilles dykstra , April 20, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Few US citizens nowadays seem to know any foreign language, pity, for the following book explains Russian anti semitism:
    Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
    Who is interested in the why of German anti semitism after 1870 has more luck:
    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914', New York 1972
    Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.
    'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
    Also interesting is:
    Horace Meyer Kallen, 'Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology', New York, 1921
    Pre WWII 'neocons':
    Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983

    jacques sheete ,

    April 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT

    @Wally

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"

    The so called non-profit scene also appears to me little more than a cesspool of corruption and I wonder who or what dominates those rackets.

    Art , April 20, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT
    ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government".

    ZOG is an excellent term that describes the situation in America perfectly. The fact of ZOG is undeniable to everyone politically involved in the US government.

    The question is will people use the term "ZOG" to attack Jews? It has one great advantage – the word "Jew" is not used.

    The thing that Jews themselves fear the most, is the word "Jew" used by Gentiles. The American population is conditioned not to use the word. Subliminal fear is attached to using the word "Jew."

    The goal of the American population must be to eliminate ZOG – but not Jews.

    The question is – can this be done without using the word "Jew" and all that goes with it?

    The answer is most likely – NOT!

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Great article.

    Dr. X , April 20, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
    @blaggard I applaud your honesty and logic. What a fight...

    Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the 'conservatives' and 'liberals' is not a battle of ideas or even of political organizations. It's is a battle of force, terror and power. The Jews and their accomplices and dupes are not running our country and its people because of the excellence of their ideas or the merit of their work or because they have the genuine backing of the majority. The Zionists are in power in spite of the lack of these things, and only because they have driven their way into power by daring minority tactics. They can stay in power only because people are afraid to oppose them, afraid they will be socially ostracized, afraid they will be smeared in the press, afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will not be able to run their businesses, afraid they will lose their political offices. It is fear and fear alone which keeps these filthy left-wing sneaks in power.

    George Lincoln Rockwell wrote that - in 1961 (!)

    Beefcake the Mighty , April 20, 2017 at 9:17 pm GMT
    @naro No one is more critical of Jews and Israel than other Jews. Jews are and have been a NATION in exile. Their genetic identity has been proven several times using Mitochondrial DNA in prestigious medical journals such as Nature and Science...so it is not in doubt. There is continuous historical record of Jews for at least 2000 years. Christian guilt is well deserved for their historical hounding, persecutions, exiled and pogroms against innocent Jews under their jurisdictions.

    The writer of this article is a hate monger. There are Jews of all political spectrum. They are not homogeneous in their political position.
    Jews succeed because they study hard, work hard, and take risks in business and politics. They think outside the box, and are inventive and scientifically curious. Instead of envying their success try to learn and emulate it losers.

    They also engage in pretty intense ethnic networking and favoritism, things they typically castigate others for doing.

    Re. diversity of Jewish political opinion, I don't see it. Most Jews are partisan Democrats in the US and there is very broad agreement on major issues, like immigration and Israeli-centric foreign policy, details notwithstanding. And very few Jews will acknowledge that historically, collective Jewish behavior has played a role in the negative opinions so many peoples hold against them, indeed they strenuously deny it. (Smoke but no fire? Unlikely.)

    Talha , April 20, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT

    Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality. The modern western society has been built on a categorical rejection of ethics and morality.

    Bravo – that paragraph was golden in my book. If this is gone – kiss your society good bye – you're just living on borrowed time – all the gold and all the nuclear spears in the world will not save you.

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." – Henry David Thoreau

    Talha , April 20, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT
    @Seraphim Tramp is a Joo himself!

    "Looks Like Donald Trump May Well Be Jewish. That Would Explain A Great Deal", By Miles Mathis via Jim Kirwan, 4-9-17

    - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.4xaQKh2i.dpuf

    Ivanka's mommy is of the tribe too: "Ivana is also Jewish. Geni.com lists her father's name as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint: drop the second "e". You get Zelnick. It is Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish, too. See Robert Zelnick, Strauss Zelnick, Bob Zelnick, etc. Robert was a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Strauss was President of 20th Century Fox. Bob was ABC News producer. Also Friedrich Zelnik, silent film producer. Also David O. Selznick, whose name was originally Zeleznick, or, alternately, Zelnick. He and his father were major Hollywood produ - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.4xaQKh2i.dpuf

    It's all in the family (La famiglia, Kosher Nostra). The ones who voted for him are the suckers. Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man – that was awesome!!!

    Peace.

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT
    The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Seraphim , April 20, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Talha Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man - that was awesome!!!

    Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    "Jewish-American organized crime":

    'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States

    In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .

    Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "

    Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT

    @wayfarer

    Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.

    He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.

    Miro23 , April 21, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT

    Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

    It's true that US Jews are mixed race (about 55% European and 45% Semitic) although they choose to Obama-ize the fact (the European part disappears).

    Also, after a lifetime of contact, I would say that the best guys leave the Tribe (often the most Semitic and through disgust ) and the worst girls join (Gentiles attracted by money and power).

    annamaria , April 21, 2017 at 9:40 am GMT
    @Ilyana_Rozumova @

    Saker!!!!

    FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Saker (et al on this site) are not interested in "solving Jewish question." – We are interested in the survival of humanity, specifically in stopping a WWIII that could happen thanks to ziocons' policies.
    " fomenting sectarian strife in order to forestal the development of a unified Arab nation which could threaten it and creating the circumstances in which land could be acquired was at the root of Israel's relationship with its northern neighbor." http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-and-islamist-militias-a-strange-and-recurring-alliance/5586075
    " the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti- Stalinist" are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

    jilles dykstra , April 21, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
    @JerseyJeffersonian Thanks Jilles,

    My German is not of the best, but I have been interested in 200 Years Together for a while, so maybe I can give it a try. I will try to check out these other titles you have provided, too. Sol Bloom, 'The Autobiography of Sol Bloom', New York 1948

    also is interesting, though just for one sentence, something like 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was that he slowy prepared the USA people for war'.
    This is in one sentence the book

    Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities', New Haven, 1946

    Alas few people seem to read books any more, especially old books. The interesting thing about a book, great contrast with a web article, is, once printed, it cannot be changed any more.

    Sol Bloom was a jewish friend of Roosevelt. You might also want to read
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New Yirk, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    and
    Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
    How the USA, and especially Morgenthau, wanted to fight Germany, in WWI.
    Both Bloom and Morgenthau were of German descent, I suppose they hated Germany because of its antisemitism.

    jilles dykstra , April 21, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT
    @Ilyana_Rozumova @ Saker!!!!
    FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Are maybe present events solving the jewish question ?
    There seems to be little doubt that Trump is in conflict with Deep State, neocons in the lead, mainly jews.
    See also:
    John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', New York 2007
    It is possible that Marine le Pen of FN wins the French elections.
    FN is accused of being antisemitic:
    Pierre-André Taguieff, Michčle Tribalat, 'Face au Front national, Arguments pour une contre-offensive', Paris, 1998 is an anti FN book written by two jews.
    Hungary is closing Soros's university.
    Putin already closed his institutions in Russia.

    Joe Levantine , April 21, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT

    @Cyrano

    Americans using Jews or vice versa? Just check the roles that Bernard Baruck and Rabbi Steven Wise have played from the administration of crooked Woodrow Wilson to the more crooked Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Two names among thousands of Jews who have shaped U.S. policies while hiding behind the facade of their puppet presidents should give anyone food for thought.
    If Cyrano can bring back into circulation the forbidden book of ' The Controversy of Zion' by the late Douglas Reed who turned from bestseller author to a nonexistent nothing the moment he published his 400+ book, I am positive that the commentator would apologise for this comment.

    annamaria , April 21, 2017 at 4:53 pm GMT
    @naro Mr. Petras you are a vile old man. Nazis were quite capable at merciless killing of defenseless Jewish (and others) men, women and children by the millions, as they were unprepared for the utter vile brutality that Nazism represented. Now the Jews are well defended and strong, and will defend themselves to the utmost. So come to to the fight old boy, we can take on Nazis . We know them better now. "Now the Jews are well defended and strong we can take on Nazis."

    Actually, an Israeli citizen Mr. Kolomojsky financed the neo-Nazi Azov battalion that auto-da-fe(d) a good number of civilians in Odessa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJexglSOF6s (see also Azov battalion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion )

    A member of the powerful Kagans' clan of warmongers, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan has been an eager collaborator with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (do you know about Baby Yar and such? – Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is obviously OK with the history of Ukrainian Jews during WWII). Neither ADL nor AIPAC made any noises about bringing Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in Kiev in 2014. Why?

    And what about Israel' collaboration with ISIS against sovereign Syria? "The documents show that Israel has been doing more than simply treating wounded Syrian civilians in hospitals. This and a few past reports have described transfer of unspecified supplies from Israel to the Syrian rebels, and sightings of IDF soldiers meeting with the Syrian opposition east of the green zone, as well as incidents when Israeli soldiers opened up the fence to allow Syrians through who did not appear to be injured. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926

    A Canadian darling of the US State Dept, Chrystia Freeland, happened to be a progeny of a Nazi collaborator from Ukraine (Mr. Chomiak), though Mrs. Freeland proclaimed loudly that her grandpa was "persecuted by the Soviets:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
    " it appears Freeland's grandfather – rather than being a helpless victim – was given a prestigious job to spread Nazi propaganda, praising Hitler from a publishing house stolen from Jews and given to Ukrainians who shared the values of Nazism. Chomiak's editorials also described a Poland "infected by Jews." Mrs. Freeland is still in office, spreading Russophobia that is so dear to ziocon hearts.

    In case you did not notice, Zionists (ziocons) are modern-day Nazis.

    " the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20th

    Rurik , April 21, 2017 at 5:22 pm GMT

    Good ol' Charlie he knew.
    He learned to beware the POWER of the Cabal

    when I read that I thought you might have meant Charlie Reese. he used to write for the Orlando Sentinel in Florida, until ((they)) ran him out

    here's a light hearted one that shows his depth and humor

    http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Birds&OtherAnimals/+Doc-Birds&OtherAnimals-OtherAnimals/CharleyReeseOnSquirrels.htm

    more:

    We are guilty by proxy of murder, land theft, destruction of property and all the other human misery that Israel has caused in the region.

    So, if you're one of those rah-rah Israel First supporters, don't complain when the terrorists come looking for you. You've allowed your politicians to enlist you in somebody else's war, and in war there are always casualties on both sides.

    America has become a nation of pathological irresponsibility. Nobody wants to take responsibility for his or her own actions, which is the basic cause of the litigation flood. Least of all do American politicians wish to do so. They would rather heap on the manure that the terrorism directed at us has nothing whatsoever to do with the policies they have followed for the past 30 years or more. In truth, it has everything to do with those policies.

    So, if you or your loved ones get bloodied by terrorists, then blame your Christian Zionists, your Israel First crowd and your corrupt politicians who have their tongues in the ears and their hands in the pockets of the Israeli lobby.

    http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=2197

    there's a whole slew of treasures and beautiful prose and simple, human humility and decency in these archives.

    http://www.antiwar.com/reese/archives.php

    I heartily encourage the reader to peruse them with pleasure.

    more:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-1984-073111-story.html

    Alden , April 21, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
    @turtle Sooner or later, the U.S. will go down to defeat, at which point "da Joos" will have to find a new host.
    I expect they will have a bit of a tough row to hoe in this, the New Chinese Century.
    No matter how hard you try, I doubt you can pass off this woman:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Chung
    or any of her countrywomen, as "Semitic,"
    thus disproving that "Jewish" = "Semitic" or vice versa.
    Shlomo Wong? I think not. I read Jewish community publications all the time I have concluded they are planning their next jump to China after they destroy America
    There are endless articles about how much Jews and Chinese have in common (lie, cheat and steal). They discovered that in medieval and early modern times there was a community of Persian Jews in China and blather on about that.
    And there is approval of marriage of Jewish men to Chinese women.

    But the Chinese are not love thy neighbor Christians. Nor do they have millions of wanna be Jews Old Testament obsessed Protestants. Chinese officials are well known for accepting bribes and then doing exactly what they want.

    On the other hand, Israel and American DOD employees sell lots of stolen American military secrets to China.

    Jewish attempted takeover of China will be a battle of the Titans.

    Anon , April 21, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Wally Indeed, "non-profit", but Jews Only and huge salaries

    Recall the corrupt & hate mongering ADL, or SPLC.

    Look at the 'holocau$t' scam.

    Build yet another laughable 'holocaust' Theme Park, Potemkin Village, put up a picture of MLK, falsely claim that it's all about 'tolerance', 'diversity and civil rights while down playing it's obvious Jewish supremacism, and voila! Massive taxpayers subsidies.


    "One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
    - endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979
    ====================================
    "These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures."

    - Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15.

    Here's the top non-profits. None are identifiably Jewish:

    1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation United States Seattle, Washington $42.3 billion 1994 [1]
    2 Stichting INGKA Foundation Netherlands Leiden $34.6 billion €33.0 billion (EUR) 1982 [2]
    3 Wellcome Trust United Kingdom London $26.0 billion Ł20.9 billion (GBP) 1936 [3]
    4 Howard Hughes Medical Institute United States Chevy Chase, Maryland $18.2 billion 1953 [4]
    5 Ford Foundation United States New York City, New York $11.2 billion 1936 [5]
    6 Kamehameha Schools United States Honolulu, Hawaii $11.1 billion 1887 [6]
    7 J. Paul Getty Trust United States Los Angeles, California $10.5 billion 1982 [5]
    8 Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation United Arab Emirates Dubai $10.0 billion 37 billion د.إ (AED) 2007 [7]
    9 Azim Premji Foundation India Bangalore $9.8 billion 2001 [8]
    10 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation United States Princeton, New Jersey $9.53 billion 1972 [5]

    Art , April 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
    @Alden I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.

    They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars?

    They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment?

    Hmm?

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist – how can this work out good for America?

    Sam J. , April 21, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT
    " Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) "

    Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed to be the good guys?

    There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.

    In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths. Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.

    I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist too.

    Alden , April 21, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT
    @wayfarer The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Thanks, very interesting. Funny thing, most of the Jews I know are such fervent liberals they think Kushner is a traitor to the cause of liberalism.
    Seraphim , April 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT
    @Art You are a nazi. Your generalization are the vile ranting of a hate filled animal.

    Oh my - straight to the "N" word - what happened to "anti-Semite" - has it lost its sting? Ah' to bad.

    What are you going to call us next?

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. By the way Nazism and Zionism are brothers - both are fascists.

    p.s. What about you Jew animals in Israel - you have the most immoral army in the world.

    p.s. You Jews and your hateful bluster - you are fooling no one.

    p.s. ZOG is going to lose. It is an irrefragable law:

    "Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches -‌that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.

    Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where 'reductio ad Hitlerum'* occurs.

    *Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", ad Nazium, "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party, for example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, X is a vegetarian, therefore X is a Nazi". A variation of this fallacy, reductio ad Stalinum, also known as "red-baiting", has also been used in political discourse.

    Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd). According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.

    Sam J. , April 22, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
    @Sam J. "... Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,)..."

    Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed to be the good guys?

    There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.

    In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths. Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.

    I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist too. I don't know if this guy is real or if it's true or not but there's a vast amount of information and cases which readily conform to the idea that everything he says is true. According to the witnesses in the dutroux-affair all the participants had to break the law to be in business with them on an intimate level. Mostly this was done through sexual abuse of children. Twenty years ago you might could laugh this off as some foolish rantings of conspiracy freaks but there's been too many verifiable cases with lots of physical evidence.

    Pizzagate Pedogate Dutch Whistleblower Real Big Money Revelations by an Insider

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO4rAYk-420

    I'm also not saying it's just Jews but I am saying they are the root of it all. They're the glue that keeps the whole thing together due to their insider grouping tribalism.

    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." – Henry David Thoreau

    annamaria , April 22, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
    @Naro Again To Summarize JEWS ARE THE BRAINIEST AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED HUMANS ALIVE TRYING TO SURVIVE IN A WORLD OF MORONS AND IMPRESSIONABLE IDIOTS! Examples of the psychopathology and idiocy of the Nazis is obvious on this thread-ironically in a web site owned by a Jew.
    The envious losers, and political manipulators have always looked for scapegoats for their failures, and Jews were easy targets. Not any more. Jews are quite able to defend themselves ..thank you. You don't believe me? just try. " Jews are quite able to defend themselves .."

    At least now you have prudently omitted references to Nazis, since you became educated from other posts that American Jews – see Kagans' clan of warmongers – are in bed with Ukrainian neo-Nazis and, moreover, that an Israeli citizen is known as a financier of the bloody neo-Nazi battalion that had burnt a score of civilians to death in Odessa.
    American (and UK) Israel-firsters have betrayed western civilization for the benefit of mythological Eretz Israel. Your tribe was pushing for the slaughter in Iraq (see treasonous Wolfowitz and Feith and the despicable Kristol) and in Libya (the former pearl of North Africa, where citizens used to enjoy free education, free health care, and a sizable gold reserve – the latter stolen by the US "deciders"). Currently, it is an ongoing bloodbath in Syria, which Israel wants to prolong as much as possible in order to steal the Golan Heights. For the same reason your "most accomplished" Israeli generals proclaimed loudly their preference for ISIS. What have you claimed, that your tribe is the "brainiest?" – Relax. With such "activists" like the openly racist Avigdor Lieberman (ex-convict) and your half-wit hater Ayelet Shaked you are safely among mediocrities. As for the truly brainiest and ethical like Baruch Spinoza and Hanna Arend, they were rejected by your supremacist tribe. Check the location of Spinoza' grave.

    annamaria , April 22, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT
    @Anonymous shut up naziscum. where is your thousand year reich? in the garbage An Israeli demonstrates her regular poor manners Aren't you trying to imply that Israelis are striving for their thousand-year reich? Good luck. Don't forget to take the neo-Nazi-loving Kagans' clan with you.
    Johnny F. Ive , April 23, 2017 at 6:48 am GMT
    What if the US Empire was financially bankrupted? How would it behave afterwards? I think it will end with military overstretch and bankruptcy or nuclear war. One or the other. Its sad that all this suffering is a tribal war. On man's way to civilization he forgot to leave that behind. Would the US behave after bankruptcy like the Soviets did after losing in Afghanistan or is the US going to be even more like a huge North Korea? Besides Israel there is the manipulations of other countries like the Europeans.

    I agree Trump is very concerned about appearance and that makes him weak. He like the rest of the American Establishment is like Narcissus and in their pond the Empire is reflected back at them. They won't let go of it.

    I disagree that the American people vote against war. The American people have had plenty of chances. They've had chances to turn the world's fortunes around plenty of times with Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader. That pretty much covers the whole ideological spectrum except the neocons. The American people have consistently voted for war at least since 1992. They had these men who ran for president in order to save us all and the were consistently rejected by the electorate. Its not just the government. Its the 4th estate. The corporations. I'm now a pessimist. War will come and it will fail. The question is who will the Empire wage war against and who will survive the war?

    Is Pauline Christianity legitimate? The problem with it has always been that it was built on a tribal story. A lot of good came from it. It was used to justify some bad things too. Its origins are not the classical world. That is probably why the alt-right has a fascination with modern pseudo-pagan religions. I think the real story is that the Ancient Greeks particularly the Epicureans have won the argument:
    https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Stoic-Epic-comp.html – these ideas are older than Christianity.

    The AngloZionist tribe is now considered what the Catholics considered the pagans were. The word paganus means hick. Pagan now means new age and Christian in the West means hick. The AngloZionist don't even like them but require their obedience and support. Perhaps its only a matter of time before the Judeo-Christian fairy tail loses its political power and just becomes good literature. It has no hope especially with the transhumanist wonders about to bequeathed to the world. It can't compete. They avoided the truth for about 2000 years and couldn't develop a convincing response against Epicureanism. Genesis is the best they could muster against natural selection after thousands of years of knowing about it? Epikoros (Hebrew for heretic) in the end won! But the US Empire has an unhealthy appetite of playing chicken with nuclear powers and western Judeo-Christianity will not go peacefully into the night. Read More Agree: Beefcake the Mighty

    Frankly Frivilous , April 23, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT
    @Yevardian Um, the Golan Heights was officially annexed by Israel in 1981.

    I enjoy your articles, but you can't be taken seriously whilst you keep making amateurish mistakes like this.

    Ditto on Russia being the only country truly upholding Islamic values. If Israel officially annexed the Golan heights in 1981, why is Netanyahu making noise about it now? Seems insecure. Also consider that "true" Islamic or Christian values would be those proposed by the actual adherents. Would Russians have any reason to discount or misrepresent their stated values if they were altruistic and high minded? I suggest you try and critique the Sakers comments on their intended merits if you wish to be taken seriously.

    Joe Franklin , April 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT
    @nsa ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ZOP is accurate too, and ZOP is the specific cause of ZOG.

    ZOP is Zionist Occupied People, and ZOP is a description of the US and Israeli voter obsession with and participation in a neurotic victim cult.

    ZOP is the elephant in the room that nobody in broadcast media will discuss.

    US and Israeli victim cult lobbyist are obsessed with cult dominance of national elections and society.

    The US and Israel have a dominant victim cult that displays a neurotic persecution complex and frequently demands government remedies.

    A US and Israeli victim cultist is conditioned to demand government reparations and entitlements in exchange for their votes.

    A typical US and Israeli victim cultist is obsessed with Nazi and white supremacy, claiming that white-straight-Christian-males are deplorable Nazi or Nazi sympathizers.

    The US and Israeli victim cult is aggressive toward foreign nations that are a perceived threat to the cult.

    As an example, here are some of the government entitlements enjoyed by victim cultists in Israel:

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/lawsuit-challenges-israels-discriminatory-citizenship-definition/8767

    Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality at the country's establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality." Although all Israelis qualify as "citizens of Israel," the state is defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation," meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.

    Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.

    Arab leaders have also long complained that indications of "Arab" nationality on ID cards make it easy for police and government officials to target Arab citizens for harsher treatment.

    The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens, most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with "Jewish" and "Arab" being the main categories.

    Gene S. , April 23, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT
    @wayne Read about King David in the Bible. He was a genocidal psychopath. It states in the Bible how he vicioulsy murdered civilian prisoners of war. And on at least one occasion he gave his men all the pre-puberty girls to "do with as they pleased", which was after they had murdered their parents and all family members. I am sure this was a great sadistical delight to him and his troops. Men of God? No God damned way. Undoubtely men of Satan. Different time, different standards. You are judging him with the modern "for show" standards, by which the "civilized" nations, which have instituted them, do not abide. The US govt has killed 10s of millions of mostly civilians (men, women, children) since the end of WWII, around the world, and now their clients in the Middle East and Ukraine continue mass rapes and murder. David's crimes pale by comparison. Those in Washington D.C. will never face justice for what they are doing, at least in this world, nor do they repent at all. You can read about King David's repentance in the same Bible.
    Anon , April 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT
    300 Words @Incitatus I deeply apologize, Anon/Keith. I overestimated you. Mea colpa.

    The fable was intended to illustrate the difference between embarrassing irrational instinct (canine leg-humpers) and intelligent criticism. You excelled, once again, at the former, and proudly so. Knock yourself out. Polish those table legs.

    "I know I confuse you."

    The only one confused is you, Anon, the evader of any record who still fancies the distinction 'Keith.' Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily indict you for your narrow agenda and regurgitative screeds?

    No matter.

    You might look up Julius Streicher, your patron saint. A man so vile cardinal Nazis at Nüremberg avoided him as if he would leave excrement on them in any prolonged contact. They knew best. Keith ,

    "Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily endict you".

    Indict me for wanting to bring down the elephant in the room? Did the Jewnited states already pass hate speech laws, forbidding all criticism of Israel and for exposing Jewish power in America? Did the Jewmerica pass laws criminalizing Holocaust Revisionism? Did I wake up in a country without first amendment rights. Or is all of this wishful thinking on your part?

    Should I be indicted for a hate crime for asking for an autopsy proving several million Jews were gassed at the Auschwitz labor camps? Should I be hung because there is no autopsy evidence?

    Maybe this is the purpose of the Unz Review. My Unz Review remarks will be use to retro actively endict me for laws that weren't on the books when I made my forbidden remarks, just like the Germans were endicted, convicted and hung at Nuremberg?

    It is you and the other Hasbara trolls who have a defensive agenda and regurgitate
    the same old name calling " Its a trick, the Jews always use it"

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

    When the Jewish Bolshevik NeoCons take over America, I am convinced I will be one of the first to be put in a NKVD Gulag. I also know my cell mates will be other patriotic Unz Review Americans along with millions of others who want to bring down the elephant in the room.

    I apologize for mentioning the forbidden news about Rabbis and Herpes and the Jewish Egypt slave myth. I know this upset you. Both of these stories were news published in the Israeli Haaretz News. I guess these stories were for Jews eyes only.

    Anon , April 23, 2017 at 11:01 pm GMT
    @Ace

    Vietnam was not a military defeat.

    Doesn't matter. It was a political defeat, and war is an extension of politics.

    [May 05, 2017] Jared a billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby

    Some comments are over top, but the term "Kosher Nostra" is pretty interesting. Jared's father sevred a jail term...
    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States ..."
    "... In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs ..."
    "... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation ..."
    "... Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard. ..."
    "... He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut. ..."
    "... They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment? ..."
    "... p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist ..."
    May 05, 2017 | ...

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT

    The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Seraphim , April 20, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
    @Talha Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man - that was awesome!!!

    Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    "Jewish-American organized crime":

    'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States

    In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .

    Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "

    Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT

    @wayfarer

    Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.

    He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.

    Art , April 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
    @Alden

    I just read the latest ADL diktat.

    As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.

    They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment?

    Hmm?

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist

    [May 05, 2017] Yeah, cause nothing says resistance like Hillary working with billionaire Wall Street donors to agitate against a sitting president.

    May 05, 2017 | twitter.com

    Sarah Abdallah Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator.

    Sarah Abdallah @sahouraxo ■ 12h

    Yeah, 'cause nothing says "resistance" like Hillary working with billionaire Wall Street donors to agitate against a sitting president.

    CNN"@CNN

    Hillary Clinton plans to launch а РАС aimed at funding "resistance" groups standing up to Pres. Trump, sources say cnn.it/2pfkOA8

    [May 05, 2017] A note on Obama oratorial skills

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence !!! ..."
    "... His style was actually fairly drone like. He went up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger. ..."
    "... Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected. ..."
    "... Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought then, having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers? ..."
    May 05, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    polecat , May 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    "Obama was the greatest orator of our time."

    Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence !!!

    Obama, a most grating poseur

    David Carl Grimes , May 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    He became a stuttering fool without a teleprompter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulDv-hs5unI

    Montanamaven , May 4, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    Thanks Polecat, I agree whole heartedly. His style was actually fairly drone like. He went up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger.

    HopeLB , May 4, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    I agree. Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected.

    Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought then, having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers?

    [May 05, 2017] In defence of the size of Obama bribe

    Notable quotes:
    "... Apparently, corruption is now the love that dare not speak its name. ..."
    Apr 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    WheresOurTeddy , , April 26, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    In defense of Obama making $400K while Clinton only made $225K

    he was actually able to *GET ELECTED*.. She took all her bribes up front then lost to Trump with a 2-1 money advantage and the press completely in her pocket. Truly pathetic. He should get WAY more than 2x what she does. HE ACTUALLY DELIVERED SOMETHING TO HIS BENEFACTORS. If she had any shame - which she obviously doesn't - she'd disappear forever. And we'd all be the better for it.

    Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea are three of the most embarrassing Americans to have ever lived. If you think I'm being too harsh, ask yourself why the (D) party they built for 30 years prefers fascism to democratic socialism.

    Jeff W , April 26, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    WaPo:

    Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama as a reward for [not prosecuting anyone on Wall Street for the crash].

    Well, something that seems fairer , if not inarguable, is that if President Obama had prosecuted people on Wall Street, demanded Pecora investigation-style hearings, or, y'know, acted generally in the public interest, Wall Street would not be shelling out $400,000 to hear his views on anything.

    To view Obama during his presidency as not being constrained under those circumstances seems, to me, to be a kind of willful obliviousness.

    Marina Bart , April 26, 2017 at 8:19 pm

    Great framing.

    Apparently, corruption is now the love that dare not speak its name.

    [May 04, 2017] 200PM Water A note on Obama oratorial skills

    May 04, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    polecat , May 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    "Obama was the greatest orator of our time."

    Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence !!!

    Obama, a most grating poseur

    David Carl Grimes , May 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    He became a stuttering fool without a teleprompter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulDv-hs5unI

    Montanamaven , May 4, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    Thanks Polecat, I agree whole heartedly. His style was actually fairly drone like. He went up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger.

    HopeLB , May 4, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    I agree. Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected.
    Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought then,having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers?

    [May 03, 2017] Prez Trump You Can not Fight the Whole World by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We control America." -Former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon ..."
    "... IDF vs Hezbollah round 2 should be interesting. All the Pauly Shores and Jared Kushners in uniform shat their panties when they faced a tough disciplined adversary immune to air superiority. Asymmetrical warfare is the 21st century's antidote to gunboat diplomacy. ..."
    "... Actually, Shel Adelson put all his casino chips in Rubio's corner, and considered Trump unreliable at best. Until Trump won. Then I guess Adelson did support him, though I doubt Trump is bought and paid for to the extent Rubio would have been. ..."
    "... Trump, at the order of Netanyahu, will destroy Iran in order to establish Israel as the only hegemonic power over the whole Middle East and Northern Africa. That's why they are destroying one country after another according to sectarian and religious lines such as the Yinon Plan outlined. The whole chaos in the Middle East serves only Israel. Just recently, Netanyahu said that Israel is one of the superpowers. How right he is. ..."
    "... Mr. Margolis. Everything in Trumpland has to be magnified to huge. The attack on the Iran agreement fits nicely in Trump's idiosyncrasy that every achievement of president Obama must be dragged through the mud and declared the worst thing ever done by a US president. As in the case of NAFTA Trump may actually do nothing after he has talked to two women: May and Merkel. There is even an outside chance that he will talk to a third: Le Pen. ..."
    "... Kushner and the military have the foreign policy portfolio. Trump has no idea whats going on. All of a sudden everybody likes him. That's enough for Trump. So "we" have gone full Zio. Duck and cover! ..."
    Apr 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Maybe the president believes he's won a great victory over the wicked Syrians by lobbing cruise missiles at one of their underused air bases. Maybe Trump believes that he's scared the evil Russians and the too big for their sampans Chinese into obedience.

    His 22,000 lb MOAB terror bomb on Afghanistan should keep those pesky Taliban quiet for a while even though the Pentagon claimed the intended target was a group- Khorosan – that may not actually exist.

    Those major malefactors, the crazy North Koreans, could be about to feel America's full military might if they so much as twitch.

    Not content with nearly stirring up a new war with North Korea, President Donald Trump is now waving the big stick at another of Washington's favorite bogeymen, Iran. For the Trumps, Iran is poison.

    In recent days, President Trump has threatened to renounce the six-power nuclear agreement to freeze or shrink Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This sensible pact was signed during the Obama administration by the great powers: US, Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China. Trump appears willing to abrogate the treaty and outrage the other great powers just because he hates Iran for some reason and, it appears, Muslims in general.

    The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government. In fact, PM Netanyahu often appears the most moderate member of his rightist coalition which is dominated by militant West Bank settlers.

    Trump has surrounded himself with ardent supporters of Israel's right. One of his major bankrollers is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is a key supporter of Jewish expansion on the illegally occupied West Bank.

    Israel's right has made a hate fetish of Iran and incessantly calls for war against the Islamic Republic. However, the mighty US Israel lobby twice failed to push the Obama administration to attack Iran. The US Congress, by contrast, is totally under the thumb of Israel's American lobby and pays more respect to PM Netanyahu than the president. He who pays the piper .

    In fact, Congress sought to block sales of Boeing civilian airliners to Iran worth $16.6 billion even though it would have cost thousands of American jobs. Congress has been trying to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal ever since it was signed, putting American national interests on a collision course with those of Israel's right.

    But now President Trump says he's found a new reason to sabotage the six-power deal: Iran, insists Trump, supports 'terrorism' and has bad intentions. This charge has been around for decades, cited by Israel as a compelling reason to attack Iran because Tehran supports the 'terrorist' Lebanese movement Hezbollah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.

    The 'terrorist' label is slapped onto all enemies of Israel and the United States. It's a handy, meaningless sobriquet that automatically denies those so named political or moral justice.

    I was with the Israel army when it invaded Lebanon in 1982 and saw first-hand how its arrogance turned formerly pro-Israel Shia Lebanese in the south into anti-Israel fighters. Israel actually encouraged and may have secretly financed the growth of Hezbollah and Hamas hoping they would drain support from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Lebanon's Amal militia.

    Israel hates Hamas and Hezbollah and is determined to eradicate them. The principal supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah has long been Syria. Large parts of Syria have now been destroyed by a US-engineered uprising and bands of Saudi-financed mercenaries. That has left Iran as the main supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and a principal backer of Syria's Assad government. The PLO has become a puppet of Israel and the US.

    So Israel is now determined to destroy Hezbollah in its strongholds in Lebanon and then crush Hamas with Trump's blessing, so ending any dreams of a Palestinian state. Iran is now being blamed for all Washington's problems in the Mideast. So war fever against Iran is again mounting.

    Interestingly, Iran

    Mark Green , April 29, 2017 at 4:54 pm GMT \n

    "The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government." -Eric Margolis

    More to the point:

    "We control America." -Former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon

    Timur The Lame , April 30, 2017 at 12:26 pm GMT \n
    IDF vs Hezbollah round 2 should be interesting. All the Pauly Shores and Jared Kushners in uniform shat their panties when they faced a tough disciplined adversary immune to air superiority. Asymmetrical warfare is the 21st century's antidote to gunboat diplomacy.

    We in the west got scant information of the drubbing the Edomites got in that scrap. If you read between the lines of major media coverage (as obviously should be done) one got the distinct impression that they ran out of euphemisms to try to paint that conflict as anywhere near positive.

    It turns out that the mighty Israeli army had feet of clay. And hurt feelings too judging by the massive 48 hour air assault they conducted before the peace agreement came into effect.

    My prediction is that the next time around the IDF will use all modern MOAB and fuel air ordnance weapons (gifted by Uncle Sugar) to clear the ground before their snowflake grunts appear on the scene. A real holocaust (by dictionary definition) as it were. Of course militarily it is the proper thing to do but politically problematic. If Hezbollah has accounted for this by burrowing ever more deeply, there will be dragons. Israel cannot allow for any kind of casualty count domestically.

    It is written that the French killed 75,000 0f their own due to artillery barrages in WW1. Those days are long over.

    Cheers-

    KenH , April 30, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT \n
    It looks like Trump hasn't gotten Eric's memo. He's also not afraid to think really big. Besides, Trump is one of those people who double down and try to prove anyone wrong who says he can't do something, so we should prepare for war with Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Russia no matter the consequences.

    The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government.

    Ditto that. Trump is a Judaized white man who was surrounded by many American Jews with longstanding ties to the Likud party, so I always thought his talk of non-interventionism and "America first" seemed fanciful and merely designed to ensnare "deplorabes". It was only a matter of time before his court Jews employed their wiles to change Trump from populist with a humble foreign policy into a cross between George W. Bush and Bibi Netanyahu bent on regime change and more reckless and insane than both combined.

    Bragadocious , April 30, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT \n
    Actually, Shel Adelson put all his casino chips in Rubio's corner, and considered Trump unreliable at best. Until Trump won. Then I guess Adelson did support him, though I doubt Trump is bought and paid for to the extent Rubio would have been.

    Let's look at the alternatives here. Any other Republican except for Rand Paul wanted confrontation with Iran, and on a faster timetable than Trump. Hillary was more hawkish than Trump, on that nearly everyone agrees. So really, the odds of any other major candidate starting a war with Iran were greater than they are with Trump.

    But what of this?

    Trump is a Judaized white man who was surrounded by many American Jews with longstanding ties to the Likud party, so I always thought his talk of non-interventionism and "America first" seemed fanciful and merely designed to ensnare "deplorabes."

    Again, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to serve as President without "American Jews with longstanding ties to the Likud Party" to be lurking around somewhere. They are everywhere , in both parties, and at a synagogue near you. But if Trump gets into the morass of regime change, he's a one-term President and a massive failure. I think he knows that.

    Ludwig Watzal , Website April 30, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT \n
    Donald Trump's rhetorical bravado in Syria and Afghanistan is a prelude of a looming attack on Iran that will evolve, at the end, into an outright war across the Middle East. Such a war of aggression will break America's neck and will be the beginning of the end of the State of Israel. Both crazy states have nuclear weapons and they will use them. Both, Israel and the US, don't have any ethics. They are driven by a domination of other peoples. The US have been waging wars since its establishment, except for 17 (!) years. A real peace-loving nation. The same holds true for Israel. Since 1948, Israel has been at war with its neighbors and threatens Iran with war.

    Trump, at the order of Netanyahu, will destroy Iran in order to establish Israel as the only hegemonic power over the whole Middle East and Northern Africa. That's why they are destroying one country after another according to sectarian and religious lines such as the Yinon Plan outlined. The whole chaos in the Middle East serves only Israel. Just recently, Netanyahu said that Israel is one of the superpowers. How right he is.

    Druid , May 1, 2017 at 12:52 am GMT \n
    @Anonymous By all means sell all the guided missiles, sorry... airliners, that Persian hearts desire! They will go up in smoke, torched by 500 lb bombs, or maybe by Standard missiles while trying to hit a high-rise building in the civilized world.

    And Israel wins without fighting yet again. Sun Tzu is smiling, but looks a bit tired. Sorry, 911, inside job!

    Duglarri , May 2, 2017 at 6:26 am GMT \n
    Hey Eric- in your list of threats by Trump, you skip his threats to Mexic0, China, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Britain, the EU, and most recently South Korea. And not to forget: Canada.

    Of course, he's not threatening war against any of those. Just trade war.

    Except China.

    It's hard to tell whether he knows the difference between friends and foes.

    Oh, wait, there is one country and one leader he has never threatened, never spoken a bad word of, and never so much as hinted at being any sort of issue for the United States.

    Wonder why that is?

    Proud_Srbin , May 2, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT \n
    Thank you for frankness Mr. Margolis. Humanity always prevails, terrorists always lose!
    God Bless Mankind!
    george Archers , May 2, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT \n
    Only sure cure, to get Americans to stop terrorizing the planet earth-Remove/relocate UN into Palestine (West Bank).
    Didi , May 2, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT \n
    Mr. Margolis. Everything in Trumpland has to be magnified to huge. The attack on the Iran agreement fits nicely in Trump's idiosyncrasy that every achievement of president Obama must be dragged through the mud and declared the worst thing ever done by a US president. As in the case of NAFTA Trump may actually do nothing after he has talked to two women: May and Merkel. There is even an outside chance that he will talk to a third: Le Pen.
    mr meener , May 2, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT \n
    head rabbi in Israel .goyim were born to serve Israel. trump has been kosherized by all the traitor jews around him with the master of them all kosher Kushner. the Syrian air force base was bombed because Syria did shoot down an Israeli jet. even the NK fiasco is tied to Israel. when Israel bombed the Syrian reactor in 2006 they killed 10 north Korean scientists who they knew were there. EVERY foreign policy war blockades sanctions bombing are ALL for israel. there is utterly no hope for this country
    mr meener , May 2, 2017 at 12:48 pm GMT \n
    @Proud_Srbin Thank you for frankness Mr. Margolis. Humanity always prevails, terrorists always lose!

    God Bless Mankind! when the terrorist army is ISIS Israel's private army they will not lose. they have the backing of the whole west and saudia arbia. keep dreaming evil never loses in a world controlled by satan and his spawn

    bob balkas , May 2, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT \n
    China and Russia, both bordering Korea, have not yet drawn their redlines to any attack on NK.

    And why not? Is it because they know or feel sure that US dares not wage a full scale war against NK?

    Surely, surely mad US generals, fake MSM, fake Congress are not that mad to attack a country like Korea.
    How about by a pinprick; similar to that on the Shayrat airbase?

    Carroll Price , May 2, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT \n

    Israel hates Hamas and Hezbollah and is determined to eradicate them. The principal supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah has long been Syria. Large parts of Syria have now been destroyed by a US-engineered uprising and bands of Saudi-financed mercenaries. That has left Iran as the main supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and a principal backer of Syria's Assad government. The PLO has become a puppet of Israel and the US.

    I've said all along that the war being waged by the US against Syria is for the purpose of destroying the supply line used to transfer advanced weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. Israel simply cannot abide the thought of being unable to invade Lebanon at will, and will never, ever get over having their plow cleaned by Hezbollah in 2006.

    Don G. , May 2, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT \n
    Obama has left an indelible mark with his signing on of the US to the deal on Iran's nuclear program. It's irreversible now because Russia is a party to the deal. As is the Syria war because of Russia's influence and it's MAD deterrent. And North Korea is safe because of China's influence.

    Throughout the world the situation is going to be different now for the US. Russia and China have stood up and drawn a line in the sand. The deterrent to US aggression that was missing since the fall of the Soviet Union is now back.

    Don G. , May 2, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT \n
    @bob balkas China and Russia, both bordering Korea, have not yet drawn their redlines to any attack on NK.

    And why not? Is it because they know or feel sure that US dares not wage a full scale war against NK?

    Surely, surely mad US generals, fake MSM, fake Congress are not that mad to attack a country like Korea.
    How about by a pinprick; similar to that on the Shayrat airbase? Make no mistake Bob, the red lines have been drawn by China and Russia that forbid a US strike against North Korea. Much goes on in the background that is not fed to the US media. This is why the US media is useless for letting us know what is really happening in foreign affairs that include the US. It's also the reason why 90% of what we read on antiwar.com is useless too.

    Barzini , May 2, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT \n
    It's a good idea to avoid military action against Iran. No matter how many military victories you chalk up on the battlefield, you can't win in the long run fighting in an area in which the vast majority of the population does not want you there.
    WorkingClass , May 2, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT \n
    Kushner and the military have the foreign policy portfolio. Trump has no idea whats going on. All of a sudden everybody likes him. That's enough for Trump. So "we" have gone full Zio. Duck and cover!
    eric siverson , May 2, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT \n
    I think a lot of people are confusing the little independent State of Israel with the international bankers often referred to as the new world order NWO I don't agree they are the same force and Israel has been and will continue to be as much of a victim as all the rest of us .
    Carroll Price , May 3, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
    @eric siverson I think a lot of people are confusing the little independent State of Israel with the international bankers often referred to as the new world order NWO I don't agree they are the same force and Israel has been and will continue to be as much of a victim as all the rest of us . With American tax payers forking over in excess of 5 billion dollars per year to Israel (and that's only what we know about) you could hardly refer to that shitty little aberration as an independent state.

    [May 01, 2017] Noam Chomsky Abby Martin Electing The President of an Empire

    Notable quotes:
    "... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
    "... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
    "... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
    "... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
    "... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
    "... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
    "... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
    "... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
    YouTube

    Stefan Adler 4 days ago

    Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm, Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and magazines.

    But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away from the really interesting issues.

    Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect for commercial media.

    Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening (when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at least in my opinion.

    coldflame 1 day ago

    • philosophers theory says that human cultures demonstrate severe & increasingly polarizing cycles where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer until the poor are so extremely desperate that a revolution is inevitable....Then there is a massive redistribution of wealth & things even out for awhile & then the cycle begins again.
    • It seems to me that this theory is massively sped up by technology & industry & finance abuses.
    • My guess about it is that the power-wacko-wealthy will abuse science & technology to destroy many billions of people, leaving various levels of slaves to serve them & theirs. Ultimately it won't work for them but the ego of humanity is so short-sighted & narcissistic that it's very hard to imagine otherwise. God I hope I'm wrong. We do have a chance at solving major problems of energy, extinction, food, education, so let's hope for the best.

    Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago

    Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.

    Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.

    Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol, without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.

    Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago

    Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.

    The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?

    One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top.

    Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago

    Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.

    Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.

    The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.

    He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism, and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion on Donald Trump being a candidate .

    EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)

    "The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.

    MY HERO!!!!!!!

    Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)

    10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out, which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally. There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out.

    >>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.

    >>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"

    Nailed it Noam.

    [May 01, 2017] Hidden History: The Wall Street Coup Attempt of 1933

    Notable quotes:
    "... Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler " Business Plot " Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ... ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    I wonder why this is never mentioned in history classes in the US.

    And I wonder why the US media has not frankly discussed what happened. Is it because it would embarrass powerful figures still on the scene today?

    I wonder why there is no frank discussion of the Wall Street interests who helped to finance the fascists in Europe, including the National Socialists in Germany, even during the 1940's?

    When the going gets tough, the moneyed interests seem to invariably reach for fascism to maintain the status quo.

    We keep too many things hidden 'for the sake of the system.' This obsession with secrecy is all too often the cover to hide misdeeds, incompetency, abuses of the system, and outright crimes.

    If some things cannot bear the light of day, the chances are pretty good that they can remain a festering sore and a moral hazard for the future.

    Here is a BBC documentary about what had happened.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1KwaLa8zTQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1KwaLa8zTQ

    Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1. VIDEO]

      General Smedley Butler & the Plot of 1933 · Corporate ...

      Click to view

      1:17:14

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3TumSVpfA
      • By Abel Danger ·
      • 3.9K views ·
      • Added Sep 27, 2013

      Mirrored from TheRapeOfJustice (exceptional channel for large library of relevant historical broadcasts and documentaries) http://www.youtube.com/user ...

    2. [PDF]

      The BBC's "Exposé" of Prescott Bush and Wall Street's ...

      valleyofsilicon.com/00_Google_resume/SmedlyButler-Coup5.pdf

      Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler "Business Plot" Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ...

    [May 01, 2017] Trump consolidated nationalist feelings based on the discontent against neoliberalism in the USA (and first of all destruction of jobs and redistribution of wealth up ) and neoliberal

    May 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    g libezkova -> anne... , March 21, 2017 at 06:09 PM
    "In some ways I've been disheartened by the election of Trump and the fact so many fellow citizens would vote for him. "

    I disagree. Voting for Trump was not so much voting for Trump as voting against Hillary, voting against the Washington neoliberal/neocon establishment.

    Trump was just a flag bearers of the discontent against neoliberalism in the USA (and first of all destruction of jobs and redistribution of wealth up ) and neoliberal globalization as well as never ending wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire led by the USA.

    And it is under him part of the protest movement coalesce. In this sense his success mirror the success of Bernie Sanders, and I believe a part of voters who intended to vote for Bernie voted for Trump as "the lesser evil",

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/bernie-sanders-supporters-consider-donald-trump-no-hillary-clinton

    As one respondent, a 34-year-old male IT technician, put it: "Bernie and Trump agree a lot on healthcare, Iraq war, campaign finance and trade. I really want to move on to something new, new ideas from outside the box. Maybe Donald Trump can provide that."

    The fact that such discontent is appropriated by far right in not new historically. And the fact that Trump was forced, or from the beginning intended to betray his supporters is nothing new. This is a standard practice of both Democratic Party since Clinton. Although it is too early to tell, it might well be that Trump is already neutered and we got Hillary II.

    [Apr 30, 2017] Personal message from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin our friendship is unbreakable The Vineyard of the Saker

    Notable quotes:
    "... Currently of course we're witnessing the entire foreign policy of the United States sliding down to the floor. If we survive the experience, a useful education may occur. ..."
    "... This immense vital message tells us how USA has played China, Russia and Iran very close to each others. These three have now common interests. It's quite the same when Hitler pushed Churchill, FDR and Stalin to co-operate. ..."
    "... Will Russia and China (once again) fall for the West's trick of using sanctions. We shall see, but the track record isn't very good for them. A "rule of thumb" that Russia and China should think of is, "if a UN resolution favors the West in any way. ..."
    "... Just how many times have Western powers (especially the US) used sanctions against the interests of Russia and China. The list is almost endless. And for a country herself under idiotic Western sanctions (she would be under UN sanctions ,but for Russia and China having a UNSC veto power),Russia voting for sanctions on another country is worse than foolish. ..."
    "... China actively supports neoliberal globalisation and cannot be trusted. It has deep interconnected trade and investment relations with USA. It is highly unlikely that China will ever move against Multinational corporations or against USA. ..."
    "... I don't know how likely it is for China to move against the US, but Xi Jinping certainly knows that the US is moving against China. ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Anonymous on April 27, 2017 , · at 11:45 pm UTC
    The fifth column and the central bank is sufficient to break Russia's back. What good is S500 if the main enemy is within the gates.
    Valentine on April 28, 2017 , · at 4:55 am UTC
    To be fair, but there is no friendship between nations, and those that believe it needs to stop watching cartoons and live in the real world. Each country is a psychopath that only looks after its own national interests, no countries has friends.

    The only responsibility a state has is to its own people, not to other states, if one state finds it beneficial to its people to make agreements with another states they will do so, but if a better agreement comes up from another state, they will throw the previous state under the buss. There is no friendship between states, the state loyalty is to its own people. At least, a functional state, EU will often talk about "friendship" with USA, and then act as the USA state wants against the interests of the EU peoples, but this is not the behavior of a functional state, this is the behavior of a corrupt state, a functional state will dump any other state if a agreement that would more benefit its people would show up.

    And this is what Putin would do, he is not friends with China. And China is not friends with him. They have a several mutual beneficial agreements and they are both under a common threat so they work together.

    For example Russia has thrown Iran under the buss several times, when Russia allowed USA sanctions to put on Iran, when denying to sell Iran S-300 missiles after USA made them a better deal, despite Iran and Russia already having signed the agreement, Russia just threw Iran under the buss as if it was nothing, in this case, it was quite literal as well, as Iran desperately needed those missiles to ward off an attack from NATO that could have killed millions of Iranians, but Russia saw a better deal and left Iran in the dust.. Another example is that Russia constantly allows IAF to bomb Assad, when they could step in a anytime and put an end to it. But Russia and IAF has made a deal behind Assad's back. In this scenario, Russia is like a friend that has agree that it is ok for certain people to beat up her friends when they want.. As I said, states has no friends only interests.

    It is also worth to note that while China talks of "friendship" they barely do anything, Russia is fighting NATO in Syria, in Ukraine, in Donbas, in Crimea, and China is barely able to say a support word as Russia fights for her survival.

    Alexander the Great on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:25 am UTC
    Wrong .you seem to think of a state as a person. Like somehow a state makes decisions. No it is people in power who have a vested interest who make decisions under cover of a state. The State is their cover, excuse, and savior when they screw up, and the mechanism they will use to get the citizenry to pay for their mistakes. It's no different than how corporations are used and how a corporation has somehow morphed into a person. Where a corporation can be charged with a crime but the people who made the corporations decisions are innocent. Don't be fooled into thinking that those in power under cover of a state actually care about the citizenry they do not..at all care. Not one bit. Human nature is such that sociopaths and psychopaths are those that rise to power there is not a leader in all of history that did not fall under one or both. There has never been a leader who killed for his people .only for the leaders own self interest and the interests of those who keep him/her in power ..Period ..it's just the way we as humans are wired.
    Mish on April 28, 2017 , · at 8:09 am UTC
    Wrong! It's just this belief that this is "the way we, humans, are wired," that makes these things possible, and makes it possible for these things to regress further. A state really is like a person. The prevaling mores of each individual person and all the persons of the state make up the prevailing mores of the state. It works both ways. But a nation of fierce individualists and egoists will never get a government of angels who "care" for the people. A nation of insouciant, self-centred people gets a government that will manipulate these people unconscionably, while making sure they remain insouciant and self-centred. Etc. Ultimately it's just like this popular adage goes: "everything depends on you." It's hackneyed but true
    Vor on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:15 am UTC
    Generalized principles do not apply to statecraft, the 'left' constantly make such assertions about state policy as if it is uniform in every case. Much depends on the particulars of a state, there are obvious similarities & tendencies as there would be with any institution, but institutions of the same category – such as the family – differ in accordance with all the variables effecting them. So what motivates the government of Iran can not be said to be the same for the US, & then there are the internal divisions & factions. The Russia-China strategic partnership/alliance is a lot more than mere convenience or opportunism along the lines of my enemy's enemy is my friend type of logic. It is clear that Russia & China share a vision of the world, they share a commitment to establishing a multipolar world order based on principles of adherence to international law. From that perspective, it can be said that theirs is a truly principled relationship, irrespective of all the cynical machiniations that both state's governments are regularly hostage to. The Russian & Chinese leadership are obviously doing what they believe to be in the best interest of their respective societies, but it is clear that their mutual interest also happens to be harmonious & complimentary with the interests of the entire world at this point. That is how I would characterize it, it is not about holding hands & singling & dancing in a circle, but it can not be dismissed either as just momentary self-interest on the part of Russia & China to partner up at this time, because of the intensive pressure they are under from the West. Lavrov mentioned a post West world recently, well that world is not far off in the making & when it arrives we will see how the Russia-China strategic relationship evolves, that will be the test, when the external pressures are removed, will they continue on the same course? I believe they will, for the reason of shared long-term vision, China in particular has not short-term point of view, their perspective is always long-term.
    Tony Rossini on April 29, 2017 , · at 1:51 pm UTC
    Good comment Vor .that's how I see the Russian & Chinese relationship!
    Jacky on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:16 pm UTC
    "Wrong .you seem to think of a state as a person. "

    -I think you should read the comment again, that is exactly what she is NOT doing, she is criticizing the usage of the term "friendship" as friendship is a term used to describe the relationship between two or more persons, not states.

    Persons are friends, states are not friends.

    Ad on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:17 pm UTC
    It is worth pointing out that the article is speaking of the two leaders and the friendship that exists between them personally. read the first paragraph again.
    Mike on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:42 am UTC
    You are right here about China
    Unfortunately they will do only the minimum
    necessary support for Russia to be friends with them
    That could change though if China will be targeted by the US more aggressively
    Than the Chinese may get really together with the Russians to fight of the Cabal
    Ad on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:16 pm UTC
    A fairly basic realist (from a Security perspective) interpretation of a state and the manner in which they conduct their relationships. The same realist point of view that has held US foreign policy in its trend for the last 50 odd years.

    There are other methods that can be used to both inform and interpret the actions of a state in its inter-state actions.

    Regarding one of the other responses, corporations didn't 'somehow' manage to 'morph' into a person, rather the assets of a corporation had to be 'reachable' in the event some kind of restitution or damages was required for actions that went against the interests of the community or individuals with whom they came into contact with. An individual manager has little of value when compared to the damages that may be sought. It's simply that one was followed by two then three that we ended up where we are now. We want individuals to be held criminally responsible for an action but when it comes to damages we want to be able to access a corporations assets. Can't seem to have them both easily and it behooves some to dance the narrow line between the two.

    When a discussion takes place that speaks of states as 'friends' it is a simplified use of language to explain that they share common interests and seek to work together towards a shared goal. As to how a 'state' can make a decision, it is by simply adhering to internal laws, regulations and norms that have been put in place by the apparatus of government and bureaucrats (civilian or military does not matter) the world over follow. Administrative Tribunals exist in many countries to ensure that these processes are followed as they are written. It is people making decisions, but doing so within very strict confines permitted by the state as it has been created in law.

    ­
    BRF on April 29, 2017 , · at 2:40 pm UTC
    Aye, each country is dominated by its plutocrats who may or may not see a mutual advantage to working with the plutocrats that dominate another country. Behind these oligarchs sits an even greater power holding entity of an international order that can advance one set of oligarchs and hold back another. This entity is of course an international cabal of the very few bankers who have commandeered the central banks of almost all nations of this world and own the omnipotent power to create money and credit as debt all owed to themselves. These bankers certainly own the central banks of All the major political powers as represented by their national oligarchy. While these bankers must tread lightly in some jurisdictions should their looting machine apparatus become so annoying that the local oligarchs nationalize this looting system for their own survival in other jurisdictions these bankers hold full power over the political and economy so that they have become unassailable except through a popular revolution.
    Anonymous on April 27, 2017 , · at 9:35 pm UTC
    "Regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation"

    What could those "circumstances" be? War!

    My interpretation of the statement: if any of the two countries goes to war, or is forced into a war, the other country will continue to support it economically and possibly militarily. It may very likely even increase its support in substitution of the international markets lost due to the war.

    Rikko on April 27, 2017 , · at 9:40 pm UTC
    The Chinese know which way the winds are blowing. The idea that China, with all its aspirations which inevitably collide with American imperial resistance, would abandon Putin in this critical moment in history is fanciful to say the least.

    Eurasia is a geopolitical certainty the question for us all is how we will get there.

    paul on April 27, 2017 , · at 10:19 pm UTC
    I think this column is basically nonsense. Xi wouldn't have had to send this weak message of solidarity to Putin if there weren't a real problem between them. China's geopolitical turn around since meeting with Trump has been astounding. Xi's attitude towards Obama seemed to be very challenging. His attitude around Trump and since meeting with Trump has appeared to be that of a vassal eager to please. I would say that Xi's behavior has been even more embarrassing, far more embarrassing, really, than Medvedev's puppy-like behavior when he met with Obama.

    Need I even mention that Xi seemed to have sat there with a happy smile on his face while Trump informed Xi over desert that Trump was just then in the process of bombing Xi's ally and his ally's (Russia's) ally, Syria? Not only did Xi show every sign of loving this demeaning treatment, but seemingly in response to it, he rushed home to do Trump's bidding in terms of really sticking it to North Korea.

    Xi was a bit of a mystery before his high profile meeting with Trump, just as Medvedev was before he met with Obama. No longer. The man has shown his character and it appears to be truly despicable. Say what you want about Putin, he does seem to have some guts. I would guess that no amount of 'special' messages sent from Xi to Putin will wipe away the stink of eager vassalage that Xi reeks of now. I'm sure Putin is nauseated by Xi at this point, but Putin remains, as ever, a deal-maker. If he can pretend to be best pals with Erdogan and Netanyahu, I'm sure he can do the same with Xi.

    And just as Medvedev showed Obama how eager to please Obama he was by going along with the assault on Libya, Xi seems to want to show Trump how eager to please Xi is by going along with some sort of assault on North Korea.

    Xi, we hardly knew yee.

    Marco on April 27, 2017 , · at 10:57 pm UTC
    Fairly clear that Russia and China have a mutual defense pact in the event the "balloon goes up"

    Interestingly it seems that China and North Korea also have a mutual defense treaty.

    http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/04/27/china_nokoreadefensetreaty/

    The danger is that, whereas Kim and Xi both have control over their military, Trump does not.

    Valentine on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:44 am UTC
    Oh come on, China wont even raise its voice as Trump fires missiles at Russian troops in Syria, you think China is going to engage in a war and lose hundreds of millions of its citizens for Russia? Not a chance. The best thing Russia could hope for would be some covert support. Indeed, China might even relish the prospect of Russia and China exterminating each other in a thermonuclear war, that would leave China as the worlds new power.
    SanctuaryOne on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:38 am UTC
    Did you mean the USA there? Thermonuclear radiation and fallout has a nasty habit of not staying within geographical borders, messing up the weather, reducing populations that buy stuff and generally interfering with business.
    Robert Magill on April 27, 2017 , · at 11:21 pm UTC
    Trump is an American. He was elected president in America. As an American I understand the difficulty that imposes on him to ever stand apart from the American world view. This view sees all countries as rivals and if any nation is not beholden it is treated as enemy. It's the American way of life. This view is ingrained in us all from childhood and reiterated daily with media slanting and obfuscation. Our national mind set and resultant negative actions will lead to A. atomic exchange or B. drift to second world status.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    falcemartello on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:25 am UTC
    If you are referring to the United States of Amnesia ,i'm sure you are right on that account. It appears that pax-americana is looking more like the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. It only works for their domestic audience, and their vassal states. Any other country is no longer paying any attention. Old Slavic saying threats are more signs of weakness than strength.
    Serbian girl on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:01 am UTC
    So much for Trumps feelings of "chemistry" with Xi

    Apart from Kremlin transcript, have Chinese official channels puplished anything?

    TNY on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:06 am UTC
    Hi Serbian girl

    The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published on its website an article about Putin meeting Li Zhanshu:

    http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1457207.shtml

    It is in Chinese. I suppose they'll soon publish translations in English and other languages – the website is in five languages.

    The article contains sentences that are very close to the transcript quoted above.

    Anonymous on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:43 am UTC
    TNY, brilliant, thanks for sharing!
    Serbian girl on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:44 am UTC
    TNY, brilliant, thanks for sharing!
    Larchmonter445 on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:41 pm UTC
    Here's a Yandex translation of the Chinese article linked above:
    Local time in 2017, 4 on 26 May, Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow Kremlin to meet with the CPC Central Committee and the Politburo, the Central Secretariat Secretary, Central Office Director Li gauntlet.

    Mr. Putin invited Mr. Li to convey his on President XI Jinping's sincere greetings and good wishes, and said that the current Russia-China high-level exchanges closely, each of the areas of mechanisms of exchange steadily, economic, cultural, local and other cooperation, the increasingly in-depth.

    The two sides in major international regional Affairs, communication and coordination fruitful. The Russian side on bilateral relations development and the two sides mutual trust and cooperation to achieve the highest level of satisfaction. The Russian side actively respond to the Chinese"one belt and one road"initiative.

    I look forward to 5 months of China to attend the"one belt and one road"international cooperation summit Forum and with President XI Jinping to meet.

    Mr. Li conveyed President XI Jinping to President Putin's cordial greetings and good wishes, and stressed that China-Russia comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership in the history of the best period, is to win-win cooperation as the core of the new national relationship model.

    Sino-Russian relations is Mature, stable, maintain a high level of development. Regardless of the international situation changes, both sides adhere to consolidate and deepen the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership approach will not change, committed to achieve common development, revitalization of the target does not change, work together to defend International Fair justice and world peace and stability determination will not change.

    President XI Jinping look forward to Mr. President 5 months in China to attend the"one belt and one road"international cooperation summit Forum.

    Mr. Li pointed out that the CPC Central Committee and the President of Russia Executive Office of the cooperation mechanisms in the two countries respective foreign exchanges are unique, reflecting the relations between China and Russia high level and specificity.

    We would like to join the Russian side together, and jointly promote the two the Office of the exchanges and cooperation carried out in-depth, the better the service the two heads of state diplomacy and the Sino-Russian relations development the overall situation. Parties to be involved in each other's core interests and major concerns continue to support each other, on the existing basis of further deepening the areas of cooperation, the implementation of the strategic large projects, promote bilateral pragmatic cooperation to a comprehensive, wide-ranging, high-level and constantly move forward.

    On the same day, Li gauntlet with the Russian President, the Office of the Director of the watts Eno talks, and met with Russian President environmental, ecological and traffic Affairs, the Special Representative of Ivanov, will strengthen their exchanges and cooperation in-depth communication, and of common concern international and regional issues exchange of views.

    It's a bit stilted as machine translations are, but the content is very comprehensible.

    TNY on April 29, 2017 , · at 12:18 pm UTC
    The official English translation of the article is now available.

    http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/wshd_665389/t1457647.shtml

    TRM on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:25 am UTC
    Translated version:
    Dear Mr Trump. We know that without the US dollars as the world's reserve currency your empire crumbles. We know in Eurasia that we can do business without it. We are not going to subsidize your military so it can conquer us. Have a nice day.
    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:16 am UTC
    Messages to TrumpHillary in the White House.

    They made some speech about Russia's isolation at the UN – stating that not even China will support them.
    The White House announced this as an achievement of TrumpHillary 100 days.

    Well after this statement from Xi, the USA has achieved even greater cooperation between Russia and China.

    The great deal maker has failed again.

    WizOz on April 28, 2017 , · at 10:12 am UTC
    It is because Russia and China are the adults in the game and don't let themselves swayed by the infantile tantrums of clueless morons.
    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:23 am UTC
    Hello Saker

    Listened to you interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner on Guns and Butter
    Will you be discussing this further good points made

    Valentine on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:40 am UTC
    "Chinese President Xi Jinping sends personal message of friendship to Russian President Putin on China's behalf, scotching attempt by US to make trouble between them."

    -That is certainly a interpretation, but if you want to talk of messages, the fact that China didn't even condemn USA illegal strike against Syria would be a much greater message.

    The message being "We support you Trump, we are submissive, you can to others as you please, we wont even raise our voice"

    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:30 am UTC
    This is the latest from TrumpHillary

    Here is this news again, but as reported Moscow in English on the TASS English service:

    "President Trump has stood up to countries that have threatened our national security after years of failed diplomacy. During his first 100 days, the President has sent a message to the world with his swift and decisive order to strike the Syrian air base that launched a horrific chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians",the White House press service said in a statement.

    According to the statement, Trump "further isolated Syria and Russia at the United Nations through successful diplomacy with President Xi Jinping of China".
    In addition, Trump "imposed sanctions on Syria" and "worked to isolate North Korea".

    See: White House boasts it 'isolated Russia' at UN
    April 28, 6:07 UTC+3

    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:44 am UTC
    The Latest from Rex Tillerson

    U.S. Secretary of state Rex Tillerson has said during an interview with radio station NPR that during his visit to Russia in April, 2017, Moscow and Washington had failed to resolve any issues and no further meeting had been arranged.

    According to Tillerson, Russia needs to decide if she wants to become a "positive part of the global world order, not its undermining".

    The meeting achieved nothing as the USA are basically saying Russia has to do what they want. And Russia said no at the highest level

    Where do we go fro here?

    BobNZ on April 28, 2017 , · at 10:20 am UTC
    Russia needs to do a lot better at presenting a credible case.
    The Sarin gas attack is a good example. The most obvious culprit is the Syrian Gov, they were bombing the area, the opposition was killed and the Gov clearly has the ability to produce the gas. It is therefore on the Russian /Syrian side to produce some evidence to the contrary. There was a scenario put forward that a warehouse storing gas was hit and this warehouse was being used to
    transit the gas between Syria and Iraq. Great so they know all about it. Wheres the evidence? No evidence whatsoever was given and so how can China possibly back that scenario?
    Really Trump did the right thing by bombing Syria. The school of hard knocks. Maybe next time Russia/Syria will get their story straight.
    MarkU on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:43 am UTC
    "The Sarin gas attack is a good example. The most obvious culprit is the Syrian Gov, they were bombing the area"

    The Syrian government are far from the most obvious culprits. First off they have no motive, the consequences would have been entirely predictable and obviously contrary to their interests. Secondly it has not been demonstrated they currently even possess chemical weapons. Thirdly, there has been at least one similar attempt to frame them. Fourth, there is expert evidence that demonstrates that the incident did not happen as advertised. Lastly the US government says the Syrian government did it, and based on the events of the last few decades, the chances that they are telling the truth are vanishingly small. True there are probably a few insignificant lies that they somehow omitted to tell but nobody is infallible.

    The other side clearly had means (it is known they possess and even regularly use chemical weapons) motive (they were losing and wanted to get the US involved) and opportunity (they control the area)

    BobNZ on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:24 pm UTC
    I can accept all that, but what really happened?
    Putin tells us that the Syrians hit a rebel warehouse filled with Sarin. Assad debunks this theory and says it was all faked, never happened and no one was gassed.
    The Western public is not going to easily believe that the rebels gassed themselves.
    This event has huge media attention. Everything is at stake here. If the Russians have any intel or evidence this is the time to bring it. No use hiding behind not wanting to revel how they collect their information.
    larry, dfh on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:40 pm UTC
    Really? The right thing to violate international law and create destruction in a sovereign nation, based on absolutely no evidence? Syria is guilty because they didn't scream loud enough that they are not? None of the western leaders would listen anyway.
    The true entities violating the law are the US and Israel. Any argument presented by them can automatically be considered obfuscation and mis-direction. None of their actions are noble, and none of their concerns are sincere.
    Basil on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:58 am UTC
    I'm waiting for them to mention a Norwegian Blue parrot in one of their news releases. It's getting harder to differentiate Trump's spin doctors from Monty Python sketch writers. They both make jokes but only one is not cursed at the end. And it's this one.

    Enjoy.

    speeder on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:59 am UTC
    This I read between the lines:

    "Our friendship is unbreakable of course on our terms, which are to do with free access to last unspoilt landmass and it´s pristine nature and resources.
    We´ll build whatever infrastructure you like, and by doing that, we will spread our sphere to all Russia.
    That is our big price. While we do this, we gladly call you our "big brother" and "greatest friend of all"." China is boa constrictor

    Zut Alors -- on April 28, 2017 , · at 8:58 am UTC
    The chabad lubavitz cult of kushner/ivanka that got trump to bomb Syria, which even bibi was unable to do despite sarin/missile false flags actually believes their turkic-slav khazar rebbe schneerson was the MOLIECH (ie the Messiah, instead of Jesus Christ) and that he will be coming back during these end times. Sephardi Rabbid Ovadia dismissed shneerson as an old jew not a messiah but we have a deluded messianics all over Israel. Putin has removed their first strike delusions by simply making it clear their tribesmen in israel,NY,SF and Golders Green,London (approx 70%) will be FIRST to be targeted if their chucktodds,mahers,blitzers,madcows,etc in the owned MSM ever starts ramping up a first strike against Russia.
    WizOz on April 28, 2017 , · at 10:21 am UTC
    You may be right. Rabbi Shlomo Dovber Pinchas Lazar, the Chabad chief in Russia is a 'personal friend' of Putin and an 'Italian Jewish Orthodox' might have whispered something to the ears of the Lubavitcher in charge with the Offal Orifice.
    Jonathan David on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:44 pm UTC
    This is correct. It's actually quite amusing. The Lubavitchers have been transformed from a Jewish cult into a Christian cult.
    Anonymous on April 28, 2017 , · at 9:10 am UTC
    This was a message (warning?) for Trump, not Putin. Why otherwise publicize a supposedly personal message?
    Con on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:18 am UTC
    I first went to Zhongguo, aka China, in autumn 2002 to Shandong, Wei Fang, Shouguang. A small city but important in flower and vegetable production. So important that there is an annual flower and vegetable expo every year. I was then the first native English teacher ever at the prestigious Shouguang Yi Zhong (Yi = No. 1, Zhong = middle) Yi Zhong is the No. 1 Middle School. When I arrived it was the 1st day of the 42nd anniversary of the school and I was given a royal reception because I was the chosen companion, during the whole week of the anniversary celebration, of the Secretary of Shandong. The Supreme leader of the province
    that had, and still has, the 2nd highest GDP of the whole of China. That school had produced many party higher officials over many years in Beijing.
    That city like many cities I visited as guest of numerous officials, in the years of 2002/2003, had many Russians there too. The Russians were very conspicuous but their numbers dwindled throughout the reign of Hu Jintao. Even when Xi ascended the throne of Emperor very few Russians were around. Even in recent times in my travels up until l left in September 2017 Russians were not so common. I lived and traveled in China continuously from September 2002 to September 2017. However the Russian people most famously known during the rule of Emperor Hu were criminals that took over Sanya on Hai Nan Island. Yet it was Emperor Hu that enforced Mao's doctrines on the whole of the 'party' and Russians , other than the gangs were very inconspicuous, being quite quiet tho' still there. Emperor Hu gave the people the right to borrow from banks thereby ending the repute of the greatest savers on the planet.
    We know that the Remin Ying Hang, the Peoples' Bank, was previously run by Rothschilds of the ilk if the current Central Bankers but somehow they got deposed and replaced by Rothschilds breakaways as was the case in Russia. In fact it seems that the Rothschilds progressives in Moscow took the Peoples' Bank with them.
    I suggest that is the underlying situation between the two emerperors, Putin & Xi. I could be very wrong but having lived there and mixed it up with many chinese business people and officials over a decade and more thru the reign of 3 emperors that's my conclusion.
    I wish to ad something I've not seen shared in any news media about China. What outside China people mostly don't know is that if a start up company employs people and contributes to the local economy for a few years they receive a Zero tax bill. They must submit their monthly report to the local tax office but no tax payment is required. Not only that but their local government will promote and pay for that business to attend national expos. My friend in shenzhen who makes computer software and hardware, employs 10 people, has been sent to a huge expo in Shanghai, all expenses paid by the Shenzhen government for the 2nd year in a row. He's there now. But the government sends him, all expenses paid, to all the major expos in China as they do for all businesses including the biggest such as Huawei and Tencent. In fact the big names don't pay tax either nor do they need to pay for real estate, and more. Just thought you'd be interested to know.
    Emperor Xi needs Putin's audacity for OBOR plus the gold and all, just as Mao needed them, full circle. The last year or so the Russians were becoming conspicuous again as China's folly with the west began to wane. I taught in a big scam university there last year and there were more Russian teachers coming each year. Scam university is where students who fail the annual university entrance exam can pay a large sum to get past their failure. The university is a subsidiary of a famous university run as a business by the famous university's faculty. Such campuses are the new big biz in China internal education. Yet to be a foreign teacher in China no such chicanery is allowed, well Beijing and Shanghai are exceptions. Basically China has to have people from many countries that can actually do what they trained for because the locals who studied in China can't.
    J on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:52 pm UTC
    I agree!
    1. I prefer the exceptional america way: Hiring cheap labor from oversea, and hiding tax off shore. Hell to the local population. America has wall street to produce finical products, and has art of making people hate each other overseas so its sell killing machines are hot items for export. Chinese should do same.

    2. I also prefer American colleges charging arm and leg (some over $60,000 a year), or local community colleges who has a no drop policy to any one who passed GED (a test that eastern Europeans and east Asians can pass in their sleep), But I agree Chinese should not provide the youth who fell to pass official entrance examine a college education for a fee.

    3. I agree only exceptional American can hire talent overseas to do things the can not do, but Chinese should not resort to the same practice

    Sioxx on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:21 am UTC
    There is a prediction I slightly remember: "When China sends Troups [for support?] to Russia the end of the known World is near."

    Never thought this can come true and the more less I thought this troups can be a friendly support from China to Russia.

    eimar on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:47 am UTC
    Good clarification following Trumpet' s ' chocolate cake' idiocy.

    It seemed pretty clear to me that Xi was deflecting from, not endorsing Trumpet' s action in Syria.

    Of course Trumpet, ever one to brag, spun it in his favour.

    A transcript of an AP interview with Trumpet is revealing on a number of issues:

    https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

    Some of those are:

    Trumpet has the vocabulary and delivery of a third-rate actor with ADD – nowhere more evident than on the subject of foreign policy.
    ( He has ' great chemistry' with just about every foreign leader – except NK' s bad- boy and Assad. But maybe that will change )

    He is at his most coherent when discussing ' deals' which result in ' savings' in the domestic sphere. A subject he is.most comfortable with and which is arguably his only ' expertise'. How that translates into overall welfare is far from clear )

    He uses this area of familiarity to self- promote.

    He is obsessed with ' bad PR' : again, much more articulate on the MSM' s hostility. ( And losing no.opportunity to question the failure of investigative agencies to pursue lines of enquiry on the DNC/ Clinton.)

    One glimmer of shrewdness beneath the bombast: the noting of the FBI – supposedly operating in ' national interest' using the services of a private firm ( Crowd strike), run by a ' rich Ukrainian'. So indicating that when it comes to attacks on his own credibility, he is not quite so ' inattentive.'

    Overall, I get the impression that foreign policy is something of ' nuisance' , to be dealt with only because of its interference with his domestic agenda.

    Let's hope he becomes disabused of that notion soon, or the neocons/ pay- for- players will continue to use state- apparatus for their own murderous ends.

    Grieved on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:24 pm UTC
    This is all good observation. I agree with your thought that Trump is a domestic president with little patience or taste for the international sphere. But it is said that a thing always happens to presidents and other national leaders, namely that the allure of the international is so strong, and it's so easy to grandstand and make popular points in this sphere, that they all become seduced away from their domestic focus.

    I continue to think that Trump's style is to surround himself with people who have ideas and schemes, and throw them all at the refrigerator, as one can with pasta to see if it's cooked. Whatever sticks to the fridge is a winner, whatever slides down to the floor is not.

    Currently of course we're witnessing the entire foreign policy of the United States sliding down to the floor. If we survive the experience, a useful education may occur. But I'm dismayed to find Trump apply this method to global security. His naivety seems as outsized as everything else about him.

    Jean-David on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:15 pm UTC
    We Quakers often say, "Speak truth to power." That used to have some effect. But things have changed for the worse. I cannot speak on behalf of Quakers, but it seems to me that power is not listening, so speaking truth to it is no more effective than speaking truth to a brick wall.
    Anonymous on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:34 pm UTC
    You might not be surprised to learn that most of the Quakers are not what they used to be either. What a corrupt world this is.
    vot tak on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:01 pm UTC
    The more I hear Assad speak, the more my respect for this man grows.

    Trump is puppet of US 'deep state,' has no 'own' foreign policy – Assad

    https://www.rt.com/usa/386395-trump-us-puppet-assad/

    "Trump pursues "no own policies" but only executes the decisions made by the "intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms manufacturers, oil companies, and financial institutions," the Syrian leader said in an exclusive interview with TeleSUR.

    "As we have seen in the past few weeks, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime," Assad added.

    He referred to the fact that Trump came to power on a political platform promising a departure from the interventionist policy of the previous US president, Barack Obama, but soon forgot his promises and ordered a missile strike against the Syrian air base following a chemical weapons incident in Syria's Idlib province.

    The Syrian president also said that it is "a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American president's foreign policy" as "he might say something" but what he really does depends on "what these [US military and business] institutions dictate to him."

    He also added that it "is not new" and "has been ongoing American policy for decades."

    "This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis That's why we shouldn't believe what the Pentagon or any other American institution says because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground," Assad told TeleSUR.

    He went on to say that the US continues to pursue its age-long policy aimed at establishing and maintaining a global hegemony by turning all countries that oppose it into war zones.

    "The United States always seeks to control all the states of the world without exception. It does not accept allies, regardless of whether they are developed states as those in the Western bloc or other states of the world," the Syrian leader explained.

    He also added that "what is happening to Syria, to Korea, to Iran, to Russia, and maybe to Venezuela now, aims at re-imposing American hegemony on the world because they believe that this hegemony is under threat now, which consequently threatens the interests of American economic and political elites."

    Assad expressed similar views in an interview with Russia's Sputnik news agency about a week ago. "The regime in the United States hasn't changed," he said, adding, "since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has been attacking different countries in different ways without taking into consideration the Security Council or the United Nations."

    He also said that for the US, "the end justifies the means, no values, no morals at all, anything could happen."

    Mathias on April 28, 2017 , · at 4:09 pm UTC
    This immense vital message tells us how USA has played China, Russia and Iran very close to each others. These three have now common interests. It's quite the same when Hitler pushed Churchill, FDR and Stalin to co-operate.

    Do you really believe that Marshal Mannerheim of Finland was great admirer of Hitler? Heck no. He actually was looking forward to have military alliance with USSR before Finno-Russo Winter War. What's even more amazing Mannerheim told to General Talvela in 1941: "Remember that Germany is our greatest threat".

    So there are always short-term alliances. What never dies out is geopolitics. On the other hand China is so immense super power and Confucianism way of focusing world that i won't see it as "new America". They understand the idea of multilateralism and multipolar global future. Last 5 000 years of history are backing my idea. For me China is stabilizing power world really needs.

    Nobody on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:47 pm UTC
    Without China's political and monetary support, Russia would not be able to confront the US/EU at the same time. Just because you don't hear or see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. China's basically FINANCING Russia's front in Syria and Ukraine. Don't underestimate this.
    Frankie on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:06 pm UTC
    "China's basically FINANCING Russia's front in Syria and Ukraine. Don't underestimate this."

    Is there documents confirming that claim? I tend to agree with you but missing real clear evidence too.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:53 pm UTC
    It "could" be bad news coming out of the UN. They are "debating" further sanctions, on probably the most sanctioned country on earth, North Korea. As I read in a comment on anther article, "unless they are sanctioning water and air, what is left for them to sanction in North Korea".

    Will Russia and China (once again) fall for the West's trick of using sanctions. We shall see, but the track record isn't very good for them. A "rule of thumb" that Russia and China should think of is, "if a UN resolution favors the West in any way. Its a bad one for you to support".

    Just how many times have Western powers (especially the US) used sanctions against the interests of Russia and China. The list is almost endless. And for a country herself under idiotic Western sanctions (she would be under UN sanctions ,but for Russia and China having a UNSC veto power),Russia voting for sanctions on another country is worse than foolish.

    An abstention by Russia and China isn't enough in this case. If a vote is called on more sanctions they should veto that vote. Do the UN countries "really" expect sanctions to convince North Korea to give up their only protection against US aggression. Is the level of ignorance that great in the UNSC. Russia and China if they want to vote for a UN Resolution,they need to purpose one themselves that calls for negotiations between the two sides to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear weapons question.

    Did Russia and China not learn anything from the UN sanctions against Yugoslavia,against Libya,against Iraq,against Syria,against Iran,and those already against North Korea. I hope they have. But we shall see,I'm not very confident about that.

    NIK on April 29, 2017 , · at 3:01 am UTC
    China actively supports neoliberal globalisation and cannot be trusted. It has deep interconnected trade and investment relations with USA. It is highly unlikely that China will ever move against Multinational corporations or against USA.

    The Chinese economic "miracle" happened because of the Multinational Corporations which invested in China. MNCs reduced their manufacturing costs and increased their profits by selling these products in western markets. As China offers low cost labour and has a repressed workforce, many MNCs took advantage of it.

    TNY on April 29, 2017 , · at 1:55 pm UTC
    I don't know how likely it is for China to move against the US, but Xi Jinping certainly knows that the US is moving against China. Here are a few examples.

    1. The US is deploying the THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea.
    2. The US has sold arms to Taiwan for decades.
    3. There was a toned down version of a colour revolution in a part of China, in Hong Kong, to be specific. Actually, I'm not sure it is over.

    Whatever you think of Xi and the other Chinese leaders, they aren't so dumb that they can't see these things.

    little lulu on April 29, 2017 , · at 5:27 am UTC
    I thought this statement by Xi Jinping was in response to the fact that Mr. Trump shot missiles at a Syrian air base manned by Russians while Xi Jinping was visiting him at Mar-el-Lego. That was provocative, no?

    [Apr 30, 2017] Wall Street was calling the shots in the Obama administration before the Obama administration even existed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency. ..."
    "... Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion.. ..."
    "... I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend ..."
    "... Before he was even elected, an executive from Citigroup (the corporate owner of Citibank) gave Obama a list of acceptable choices for who may serve on his cabinet. The list ended up matching Obama's actual cabinet picks once elected almost to a 't' ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jay , April 27, 2017 at 09:23 AM
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-wall-street-speech-400k_us_5900bf16e4b0af6d718ab7b9?72&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    "The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 to speak at a health care conference organized by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

    It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency.

    That governing failure convinced millions of his onetime supporters that the president and his party were not, in fact, playing for their team, and helped pave the way for President Donald Trump. Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion..."

    RGC -> Jay... , April 27, 2017 at 09:41 AM
    If Progressives Don't Wake Up To How Awful Obama Was, Their Movement Will Fail
    ...............

    " I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend .

    I did that because, in what was easily the single most important and egregious WikiLeaks email of 2016, we learned that Wall Street was calling the shots in the Obama administration before the Obama administration even existed.

    Before he was even elected, an executive from Citigroup (the corporate owner of Citibank) gave Obama a list of acceptable choices for who may serve on his cabinet. The list ended up matching Obama's actual cabinet picks once elected almost to a 't' .
    ................
    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/if-progressives-dont-wake-up-to-how-awful-obama-was-their-movement-will-fail-291fc214325f

    [Apr 30, 2017] Corrupt opportunism. of Obama

    Apr 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K., April 27, 2017 at 05:57 AM
    Yggies isn't happy with Obama.

    http://crookedtimber.org/2017/04/26/yglesias-on-obama/

    Yglesias on Obama
    by HENRY on APRIL 26, 2017

    Matthew Yglesias's piece sharply criticizing Obama for taking a $400,000 speaker fee to talk at a conference organized by Cantor Fitzgerald is getting a lot of pushback. I find this a little startling – while I disagree with MY's defense of centrism, the underlying argument – that there is something sleazy about former officials going on the speaker's circuit for astronomical fees – seems so obviously right as to scarcely merit further discussion, let alone vigorous disagreement.

    I've seen three counter-arguments being made. First – that Yglesias and others making this case are being implicitly racist by holding Obama to a higher standard than other politicians. Personally, I'll happily stipulate to holding Obama to a higher standard than other politicians, but it isn't because he is black. Instead, it's because Obama seemed to plausibly be better than most other politicians on personal ethics. That's not to say that I agreed with his foreign policy, or attitude to the financial sector, or many other things he did, but I wouldn't have expected him to look to cash in, especially as he doesn't seem to be hurting for money. Obviously, I was wrong.

    Second – that there isn't any real difference between Obama's giving speeches for a lot of money, and Obama getting a fat book contract, since both are responses to the market. This, again, is not convincing. Tony Blair is catering to a market too – a rather smaller market of murderous kleptocrats who want their reputations burnished through association with a prominent Western politician. The key question is not whether it is a market transaction, but what is being sold, and whom it is being sold to. In my eyes, there is a sharp difference between selling the flattery of your company to the rich and powerful, and selling a book manuscript that is plausibly of real interest to a lot of ordinary people. The former requires you to shape your public persona in very different ways than the latter.

    Third – that everyone does it so why shouldn't the Obamas. Yglesias deals with this pretty well out of the box:

    Indeed, to not take the money might be a problem for someone in Obama's position. It would set a precedent.
    Obama would be suggesting that for an economically comfortable high-ranking former government official to be out there doing paid speaking gigs would be corrupt, sleazy, or both. He'd be looking down his nose at the other corrupt, sleazy former high-ranking government officials and making enemies.

    Which is exactly why he should have turned down the gig.

    Just so. The claim that 'everyone does it' is not an excuse or defense. It's a statement of the problem.

    I do think that MY's piece can be criticized (more precisely, with a very slight change in rhetorical emphasis, it points in the opposite direction than the one Yglesias wants it to point in). MY states the objections that progressive centrism (or, as we've talked about it here in the past, left neo-liberalism) is subject to:

    The political right is supposed to be pro-business as a matter of ideological commitment. The progressive center is supposed to be empirically minded, challenging business interests where appropriate but granting them free rein at other times.

    This approach has a lot of political and substantive merits. But it is invariably subject to the objection: really?

    Did you really avoid breaking up the big banks because you thought it would undermine financial stability, or were you on the take? Did you really think a fracking ban would be bad for the environment, or were you on the take? One man's sophisticated and pragmatic approach to public policy can be the other man's grab bag of corrupt opportunism.

    He then goes on to say why this means that Obama needs to adopt a higher standard of behavior:

    Leaders who sincerely care about the fate of the progressive center as a nationally and globally viable political movement need to push back against this perception by behaving with a higher degree of personal integrity than their rivals - not by accepting the logic that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
    and

    Obama should take seriously the message it sends to those young people if he decides to make a career out of buckraking. He knows that Hillary Clinton isn't popular with the youth cohort the way he is. And he knows that populists on both the left and the right want to make a sweeping ideological critique of all center-left politics, not just a narrow personal one of Clinton. Does Obama want them to win that battle and carry the day with the message that mainstream politics is just a moneymaking hustle?
    Of course, it's just one speech. Nothing is irrevocable about one speech. But money doesn't get any easier to turn down with time, any more than rebuking friends and colleagues gets easier. To make his post-presidency a success, Obama should give this money to some good cause and then swear off these gigs entirely.

    But what does Obama's willingness to take the money in the first place say about progressive centrism, if we stipulate (as I think MY would likely agree) that Obama is probably as good as progressive centrists are likely to get? The left neoliberal hit against standard liberal-to-left politics in the 1980s was that it fostered sleazy interest groups and tacit or not-so-tacit mutual backscratching between these interest groups and politicians. If the very best alternative that left neoliberalism has to offer is another, and arguably worse version of this (Wall Street firms, unlike unions, don't even have the need to pretend to have the interests of ordinary people at heart), then its raison d'etre is pretty well exploded.

    More succinctly – MY wants Obama to behave better, because otherwise political centrism will start to look like a hustle. But if someone like Obama is not behaving better, doesn't that imply that the hustle theory has legs?

    kthomas -> Peter K.... , April 27, 2017 at 06:18 AM
    YAWN

    Big O should have charged 1 Million.

    Tom aka Rusty -> kthomas... , April 27, 2017 at 06:55 AM
    Absolutely, "too big to prosecute" was worth a lot to Wall Street, far more than $400,000.

    [Apr 28, 2017] The US is at last facing the neocon captivity

    The new term is ZOC -- "AngloZionists occupied country."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Why did we invade Iraq ..."
    "... For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence ..."
    "... They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking ..."
    "... We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. ..."
    "... all of whom would go into the Bush administration ..."
    "... It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel. ..."
    "... It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.) ..."
    "... of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv ..."
    "... Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake. ..."
    "... But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. ..."
    "... This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. ..."
    May 19, 2015 | mondoweiss.net t

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates' embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq ?

    Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange:

    Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

    Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence

    Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group of people that don't want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They're willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking . we've got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that's the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

    What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (" Errors and Lies ," which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It's a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel's modern economic miracle.

    The evidence for this causation is at every hand.

    It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - all of whom would go into the Bush administration - calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem to Jordan.

    It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton in 1998 telling him that Saddam's WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)

    It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel.

    the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.

    It is in Netanyahu testifying to Congress in 2002 t hat he promised there would be "enormous positive reverberations" throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.

    It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.)

    It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum's An End to Evil, to Kristol and Kaplan's The War Over Saddam, to Berman's Terror and Liberalism, saying that Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for the U.S. to topple him.

    It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv - and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn't get away with that.

    It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:

    "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

    It is in Friedman saying that "elite" neoconservatives created the war in this interview with Ari Shavit back in 2003:

    It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is in Tony Judt's statement about the Israel interest in the war back in 2003:

    For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel.

    And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio's leading supporter, who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to "sustain" Israel.

    An Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism you won't understand the Iraq war:

    Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it's entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war's causes that didn't take these into account would be deficient.

    Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake.

    But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war.

    This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.

    [Apr 28, 2017] A shocking display of sheer avarice of Obama family

    Apr 28, 2017 | profile.theguardian.com
    Peter L. Winkler BumbleDumble , 20h ago Barack and Michelle Obama just signed a dual book deal giving them $65 million dollars. And now he grabs at $400,000 for an hour long speech funded by Wall Street. It's a shocking display of sheer avarice.

    [Apr 28, 2017] Former President Obama Has a New Job Control the Official Narrative of American Exceptionalism - Truthdig

    Apr 28, 2017 | www.truthdig.com
    The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony. When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.

    At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.

    Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.

    Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S. and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon," bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no retort. Russian jets destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But, the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.

    Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change" policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown, blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: " The U.S., Not Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")

    After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about " fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset, he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."

    Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire, and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for his first public speech since leaving the White House.

    "It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts. The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations, and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."

    Obama continued:

    "If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're just looking at cat videos [laughter].

    "So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's become more polarized."

    Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").

    However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers "back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."

    The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism" and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.

    Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.

    "But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information, or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation, and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated," Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase myself."

    What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that "the community will feel more welcome."

    If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All of it lies.

    Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].

    [Apr 28, 2017] Gaius Publius Obama Harvests His Presidency naked capitalism

    Obama was a bought president now he bought and paid president. Master of "bait and switch" now got his silver coins.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama's real legacy also includes zero bankers jailed for fraud despite the rampant criminal behavior of Wall Street in the run-up to the 2008 economic devastation. As he told a group of Wall Street CEOs in 2009 , "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." He was right, and proved an effective shield. ..."
    "... For all of those efforts, those that succeeded (passing ACA, protecting Wall Street CEOs) and those that failed (cuts to SS and Medicare, TPP, Keystone), he fully expected to be granted a "Bill Clinton future" - the big money, the big foundation, the international love and acclaim. ..."
    "... Fresh from his vacation on privately-owned Necker Island with billionaire Richard Branson, Obama has just inked his first lucrative speaking deal. The fee: $400,000. The venue: Wall Street. ..."
    "... When he was president he called them "fat cats," but now he's likely thanking them for a huge payday. ..."
    "... Former President Barack Obama, less than 100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000, which is nearly twice as much as Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016 Democratic Party candidate, charged private businesses for such events. ..."
    "... And typical of Obama, the issue is words versus deeds . That "record of attacks" was entirely verbal. Obama's deeds were the opposite of attacks; they were entirely supportive. Which is entirely to be expected given the level of funding Wall Street poured into making and keeping him president in the first place: ..."
    "... One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports. ..."
    "... Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012. That investment paid off over the eight years of his presidency to the tune of billions upon billions in profit and millions upon millions per year in executive compensation and bonuses. ..."
    Apr 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

    My words fly up, my deeds remain below.
    Words without deeds never to heaven go.
    -Barack, Prince of Denmark, Act III , Scene 3

    This is a story I didn't want to produce, but fully expected to. For years I've been writing about Barack Obama and his legacy, the one he wants to have and the one he actually has. In 2013 I listed the four economic items Obama wanted to achieve to complete what he considered his legacy list before his presidency ended:

    Privatized "Medicare expansion" (the ACA). Benefits cuts for SS and Medicare. Keystone [pipeline built]. TPP [passed]. If Obama gets these four, he's a happy man, and in his mind he goes out in glory.

    He succeeded on the first; tried and tried and tried on the second; bailed on the third only when forced to by popular opposition; and pulled out all the stops, every last one of them, to pass the fourth in the last months of his last year, even as his chosen Democratic successor, Hillary Clinton, under pressure in the primary, finally came out as opposed. (Obama's chosen DNC chair, Tom Perez, was never opposed, nor was anyone else close to his administration, though Perez doesn't talk about that much these days.)

    If it weren't for Tea Party and Freedom Caucus Republicans, he'd have been three for four - Social Security "reform" and TPP would have passed. Obama didn't lose for lack of trying.

    Obama's real legacy also includes zero bankers jailed for fraud despite the rampant criminal behavior of Wall Street in the run-up to the 2008 economic devastation. As he told a group of Wall Street CEOs in 2009 , "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." He was right, and proved an effective shield.

    For all of those efforts, those that succeeded (passing ACA, protecting Wall Street CEOs) and those that failed (cuts to SS and Medicare, TPP, Keystone), he fully expected to be granted a "Bill Clinton future" - the big money, the big foundation, the international love and acclaim.

    You can read about his fundraising for the foundation here . It's quite a story in its own right. You can hear the international acclaim grow stronger by the day, thanks to the serendipitous contrast with his successor, Donald Trump. And now the money is starting to flow.

    "Bill Clinton Money"

    Fresh from his vacation on privately-owned Necker Island with billionaire Richard Branson, Obama has just inked his first lucrative speaking deal. The fee: $400,000. The venue: Wall Street.

    Mark Hensch at The Hill:

    Obama to net $400K for Wall Street speech: report

    Former President Obama has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference for $400,000, according to a new report.

    Obama will appear at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's healthcare conference in September, Fox Business Network first reported Monday .

    Fox Business said it confirmed Obama's appearance with senior members at Cantor, a financial services firm.

    Obama will serve as the keynote speaker for one day at the company's event, sources there told Fox Business.

    The following is from the underlying Fox Business report by Charlie Gasparino and Brian Schwartz, who broke the story. Note the criticism that looks to us like praise (my emphasis):

    When he was president he called them "fat cats," but now he's likely thanking them for a huge payday.

    Former President Barack Obama, less than 100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000, which is nearly twice as much as Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016 Democratic Party candidate, charged private businesses for such events. [ ]

    News of Obama's speaking deal with Cantor, which had yet to be reported, comes as the former president made on Monday his first public comments since leaving office after an extended vacation. In those comments to college students at the University of Chicago, the president spoke broadly about the need for public service and studiously avoided any mention of the current president, Republican Donald Trump, or how he intends to make a living now that he's a private citizen.

    It's also likely to be a source of criticism against the former president given Obama's record of attacks against Wall Street bankers for making huge salaries while average Americans were suffering from the ravages of the 2008 financial crisis. Obama, a progressive Democrat, spoke frequently about Wall Street greed during his eight years as president, and now he's accepting a speaking fee from the industry he singled out as the main culprit of the banking collapse.

    I'll return to the Fox piece in a moment. First, about the timing, compare Obama's first post-presidential days to Bill Clinton's immediate post-presidential trajectory (my emphasis):

    On December 21, 2000 , President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis.

    Just two months later, on February 5, 2001 , Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City. A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work.

    Notice that just like Clinton was fresh off his late December win for Wall Street deregulation, Obama is fresh off his highly focused effort to pass TPP in the final days of his own presidency. Unlike Clinton, who won, Obama ultimately failed, but Obama's win would have been much more monumental than Clinton's. Commodities futures deregulation enriched just one industry, though it did help wreck the whole economy. TPP was truly "NAFTA on steroids," a multi-industry monopoly protection scheme, and nearly everyone in America with real money would have benefited, not just the bankers.

    By the way, if you compare Obama's speaking fee with Clinton's early fees, you may notice the price has gone up. (Clinton's later fees grew in line with those prices. His 2015 fee was $500,000 per speech .) A good example of asset inflation - and that's not sarcasm. Everything the rich are buying these days is rocketing up in price. See " Art and real estate are the new gold, says Blackrock CEO ."

    Word and Deeds

    I quoted Gasparino and Schwartz's piece for a reason. In it you can see the double benefit Obama gets - Wall Street reward money, plus undeserved credit for opposing Wall Street while in office.

    Fox, in hitting him for hypocrisy - "given Obama's record of attacks against Wall Street bankers for making huge salaries while average Americans were suffering from the ravages of the 2008 financial crisis" - actually praises him as an kind of "anti-Wall Street warrior" during his presidency, something (a) he certainly was not, but (b) something he desperately wants to be thought to have been.

    After all, you can't retire as a "champion of the people" if you don't at least appear to champion the people. And you can't be internationally loved in your "retirement" years if the world sees you as a quid-pro-quo greed head. Managing how the world sees him will be crucial to Obama's success going forward.

    And typical of Obama, the issue is words versus deeds . That "record of attacks" was entirely verbal. Obama's deeds were the opposite of attacks; they were entirely supportive. Which is entirely to be expected given the level of funding Wall Street poured into making and keeping him president in the first place:

    Wall Street Responsible For One-Third Of Obama's Campaign Funds

    One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports.

    That percentage is up from the 20% of donations that came from Wall Street donors in 2008, and contradicts reports that a growing Wall Street animosity towards the Obama administration may jeopardize his re-election bid.

    And please don't forget that Obama's real legacy, the one involving actual deeds, includes what David Dayen called "the greatest disintegration of black wealth in recent memory." Of that I wrote this :

    Occasionally, when there's justice in the world, one is not just branded by the manicured and curated image one tries to project. One is branded instead by what one actually does in the sight of others.

    Will Obama see more justice than the millions whose homelessness he caused? I guess that part of the story is still being written.

    One can hope. It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

    You Get What You Pay For

    Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012. That investment paid off over the eight years of his presidency to the tune of billions upon billions in profit and millions upon millions per year in executive compensation and bonuses.

    It would not be at all surprising if Wall Street bankers were now saying "thank you" by giving him money he can keep. In fact, it would be entirely surprising if they weren't.

    UPDATE: I discussed this issue and post on "The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen," WNHN-FM, progressive radio on New Hampshire. You can listen here ; start at 30:00 (or earlier to listen to Garth Brooks sing "It Pays Big Money"). Madeleine , April 28, 2017 at 1:20 am

    Honest question: what do banks get out of paying a former president to lecture them?

    Isn't it likely that Obama underregulated because he agrees with the neoliberals, without the need for quid pro quo/influence peddling? I'm sure he always planned to cash in, but I read him as true believer in markets anyway.

    Lord Koos , April 28, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Banks are simply settling the debt.

    PlutoniumKun , April 28, 2017 at 3:35 am

    They are demonstrating to the next Obama that good deeds go rewarded. Its the same reason why so many ex politicians get insanely large book deals for books nobody ever reads from media companies. The point is not to give money to an ex politician, its to remind the next generation of politicians the rewards they can reap if they are good boys and girls.

    Benedict@Large , April 28, 2017 at 4:13 am

    Exactly. They are telling the next President so inclined to be of aid to them that there are massive piles of cash waiting for them for things like being "the only thing between [them] and the pitchforks."

    Michael Fiorillo , April 28, 2017 at 5:49 am

    Sure, he's a True Believer, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to get paid.

    According to the tenets of the Faith, he must be paid.

    cnchal , April 28, 2017 at 6:48 am

    Banksters are expressing gratitude for the millennia of prison time they don't serve for their crime waves.

    Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.

    Moneta , April 28, 2017 at 7:48 am

    To make the conference attendees feel like VIPs so they keep on believing in the importance of networking with the .1%. Then, if they believe in the game and in their special powers, they will buy the financially engineered products.

    It's all about feeling as if you are part of the winning group.

    /L , April 28, 2017 at 1:43 am

    It would look very bad and send the wrong message if those who have served you well didn't get rewarded. Compared to the service they received it's a real bargain.
    He rented a house in DC that have rental market price equivalent to his presidential pension. Negotiations for the 60 million book remuneration was probably already finished.

    Darius , April 28, 2017 at 3:39 am

    I always thought one of the goals of passing BS healthcare reform was to use it as a bargaining chip to get Democrats to accept Social Security and Medicare cuts and privatization. It would have worked but for that pesky Tea Party that couldn't take yes for an answer from the Kenyan Muslim atheist socialist. Despite his every effort to bend over backward and kiss their asses

    screen screamer , April 28, 2017 at 5:02 am

    SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another big payday. Not even 100 days and this dude is raking it in. I wonder if he is collecting this money in the same satchels that they used to bring in to the banks and put on a scale to weigh.. The drug money that is.
    http://nypost.com/2017/04/27/obama-scores-another-400k-speaking-fee-amid-criticism/

    skippy , April 28, 2017 at 5:27 am

    Thing is el'trumpo has $interests$ before moving in to the WH

    Disheveled . The great orator was just a lowly community organizer for both developers and subprime lenders

    Eustache de Saint Pierre , April 28, 2017 at 5:42 am

    The French it seems are missing a trick by relying on a candidate with all of the charisma of a dead fish. I imagine it would not be too difficult to find a popular game show host type who can sing a little of the repertoire of a Gallic version of Al Green, follow an autocue with a touch of pizazz & generally charm all & sundry.

    Judging from what I have read on my FB feed, the man can do no wrong, especially it appears among the female contingent, one of whom suggested it was racist to criticise the cool cat for licking up the presented cream. I have also noticed a similar reaction from the females to one of the latest additions to the Neoliberal crew, " Pretty Boy " Trudeau.

    Sometimes I despair.

    timotheus , April 28, 2017 at 6:19 am

    "licking up the presented cream"

    Yes! and though the forgiveness is not surprising, I am stunned by the furious reaction at any attempt to criticize O for promptly cashing in. It includes statements like, Oh c'mon, you want the guy to work for free to be morally pure?? Or, it's just like big name artists who finally make it and then people resent that they make good money. The litany of excuses nearly always comes from people who find Trump appallingly greedy, crude, vulgar, corrupt, etc.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre , April 28, 2017 at 6:27 am

    I probably should add that this is not just a female phenomenon as from my experience, many males have also been taken in by the above tailor's dummies.

    I am somehow reminded of the situation that developed when that infamous smoothie, Ted Bundy appeared in court.

    Colonel Smithers , April 28, 2017 at 7:45 am

    How about this lad, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Sarkozy , for France next decade?

    Colonel Smithers , April 28, 2017 at 7:08 am

    Thank you.

    You highlight something which I have been thinking about recently and welcome suggestions from the "Nakeds", if only so I can ask the bookies for a quote at Newmarket next week-end. After Obama, Trudeau and Macron, who are the next pretty boys and girls the neo-liberals can use to advance their interests? Are there any empty suits with a USP out there? I was thinking of Corporate Hooker, but we have just had Obama. One of the twins from Texas or the pretty boys from San Francisco? I can't think of any in the UK apart from Chuka Umunna and Sadiq Khan.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre , April 28, 2017 at 7:56 am

    Yes, but you do need the opposite for the contrast & the hisses & boos from the groundlings. For instance, that Neoliberal hellhole Romania in a future election might consist of a battle between some decorative one time Eurovision song contest winner & the equivalent of Vlad the Impaler.

    I must admit though, that if Juliet Binoche stood for the far right, the devil would be whispering in my ear.

    Colonel Smithers , April 28, 2017 at 8:44 am

    Thank you, Eustache.

    On that note, how about Lea Seydoux? She comes from a rich and well connected family.

    lyman alpha blob , April 28, 2017 at 8:14 am

    I saw one of Jeb's! kids give a speech several years ago. Pretty boy, biracial, smooth talker and a Bush. He's not that old yet so if the clan can reinvigorate themselves after the damage Trump did to the Bush pedigree, watch out for that one.

    Colonel Smithers , April 28, 2017 at 8:40 am

    Thank you.

    I had forgotten about the little brown one as George HW Bush called his grandson George P Bush. One can get a bet for George P Bush and Chelsea Clinton to square up in 2024.

    Arizona Slim , April 28, 2017 at 8:56 am

    That would be George P. Bush. And, yes, we need to watch out for that one.

    Moneta , April 28, 2017 at 7:59 am

    The difference between France and Canada is that millions of French households are feeling the negative impacts of neoliberalism and bad EU policies while most Canadian households are still clueless, basking in their home equity or should I say home debt.

    Colonel Smithers , April 28, 2017 at 8:41 am

    Thank you, Moneta. Canada sounds like the UK.

    David J. , April 28, 2017 at 7:16 am

    If you have a copy of Gordon Wood's "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" pull it off the shelf and reread Chapter 14: "Interests." He adroitly describes the shift from disinterest to self-interest in that period.

    I'd enjoin Obama to read that chapter, too, if I could. He could learn something from non hip-hop Hamilton.

    Hamilton knew that many public officials were using their connections to get rich, but he did not want to be one of them. In 1795, at a time when he was very much in need of money and out of public office, his close friend Robert Troup pleaded with him to get involved in business, especially speculative land schemes. Everyone else was doing it, said Troup. "Why should you object to making a little money in a way that cannot be reproachful? Is it not time for you to think of putting yourself in a state of independence?" Troup even joked to Hamilton that such moneymaking schemes might be "instrumental in making a man of fortune–I may say–a gentleman of you.For such is the present insolence of the World that hardly a man is treated like a gentleman unless his fortune enables him to live at his ease."

    But Hamilton refused. "Saints," he said, might get away with such profit-making, but he knew that he would be denounced by his Republican opponents as just another one of those "speculators" and "peculators." He had to refuse "because" as he sardonically put it, "there must be some public fools who who sacrifice private to public interest at the certainty of ingratitude and obloquy–because my vanity whispers I ought to be one of those fools and ought to keep myself in a situation the best calculated to render service." Hamilton clung as long and as hard to the classical conception of leadership as anyone in post-revolutionary America. Unfortunately for the Federalists, however, Hamilton's classical vision of aristocratic leadership required more than just himself and Washington, more than just a handful of farsighted, cosmopolitan, and great-souled gentlemen who remained virtuous and above the concerns of crass moneymaking.

    rob adams , April 28, 2017 at 7:35 am

    can anyone direct me to sources citing Obama wanting to reform Medicare & SS?? This isn't surprising, but I guess I was too busy trying to make a living at the time.

    Arizona Slim , April 28, 2017 at 8:59 am

    The late, great Firedoglake gave this issue a lot of coverage during O's first term.

    katiebird , April 28, 2017 at 9:03 am

    His intent became horribly obvious during the days of the Grand Bargain. Here's a list of NC's posts on that horror

    KYrocky , April 28, 2017 at 7:39 am

    "Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012."

    It started well before 2008. Even before Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic convention he had drawn the attention of the movers and shakers, and after his speech Obama essentially entered into their world, became friends with and an acolyte of Pete Peterson and that whole circle.

    Their investment paid off handsomely for Wall Street and the Republican Party; America and the Democratic Party are the worse for it.

    geoff , April 28, 2017 at 8:07 am

    @robadams,

    "[Obama] just a few days ago went and met with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, the leading newspaper out in that portion of Iowa, and he had a discussion off the record, and emphasized that because it was off the record he could be more blunt, and said that his first course of business, and one that he believed he could get done very quickly should he be reelected, would be to strike a grand bargain. And he described the grand bargain, and there would be $2 in budget cuts for every dollar in increased taxes.

    So this grand bargain is: we will weight this much more heavily towards killing social programs, or at least cutting them back significantly and raising taxes on the rich."

    Bill Black on RNN 10/31/12

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9057

    templar555510 , April 28, 2017 at 8:40 am

    It's just one nice, big happy family club – sans politics, sans dissent, sans life ..What part of a f..of you plebs don't you get ?

    [Apr 21, 2017] The Reason Behind The Sales-Surge For Nuclear-Proof Bunkers Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
    "... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
    "... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
    "... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
    "... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
    "... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
    "... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
    "... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
    "... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
    "... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
    "... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
    "... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
    "... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
    "... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
    "... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
    "... or there will be WW III. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    > Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    On April 15th, Zero Hedge bannered "Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.

    This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower, Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

    This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine's two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed "Svoboda" meaning "Freedom" so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of "second homes".

    Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America's current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.

    No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a "limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which "could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.

    But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience 'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.

    After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about it.

    The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.

    On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

    March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

    April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

    On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists

    April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

    April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.

    April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

    April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe

    On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

    April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

    April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

    April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

    April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".

    April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

    On April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

    Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago, on 8 April 2016, "CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.

    As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent for global empire - to include Russia.)

    Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation of Vietnam.

    However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war.

    Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that. It won't exist.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Crash Overide , Apr 20, 2017 10:56 PM

    Fred Reed knocks one out of the park:

    First Transgender President: Trump Becomes Hillary http://www.unz.com/freed/first-transgender-president-trump-becomes-hillary/

    Luc X. Ifer -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 20, 2017 11:24 PM

    False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.

    [...

  • Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

    ...]

    http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/

    • Luc X. Ifer -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.

    https://www.rt.com/news/340588-hypersonic-warhead-sarmat-tested/

    winged -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    If that time truly comes, make sure you know who's really responsible.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

    [Apr 21, 2017] Since Obama appointed Derugulating Larry , Tax-evading Timmy and Too-big-to-jail Eric , maybe those appointments were not that good

    Apr 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason , April 20, 2017 at 02:31 AM
    It seems Paul Krugman isn't the economist who doesn't necessarily agree with Sanders all the time.

    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.de/2017/04/personnel-is-policy-presidential.html

    Still, all this really shows is how incredibly dysfunctional the ancient US system is. Time for a constitutional renewal process.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> reason ... , April 20, 2017 at 03:54 AM
    (Shocking stuff, no?)

    'For example, late in the Obama administration the board that is supposed to oversee the US Postal Service had zero members out of the nine possible appointments. The reported reason is that Senator Bernie Sanders put a hold on all possible appointees, as a show of solidarity with postal workers. If it isn't obvious to you how Sanders preventing President Obama from appointing new board members would influence the US Postal Service in the directions that Sanders would prefer, given that President Trump could presumably appoint all nine members of the board, you are not alone.'

    Timothy Taylor
    [email protected]

    RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 20, 2017 at 07:25 AM
    Since Obama appointed "Derugulatin' Larry", "Tax-evadin' Timmy" and "Too-big-to-jail Eric", maybe those appointments weren't very good.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Libya - More War And Reconciliation by Richard Galustian

    Notable quotes:
    "... A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority. ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The West retains it's out of touch Libyan policies when in Luca, Italy last week the G7 'warned and commanded' that the fractious warring Libyan parties 'must' work with the dying UN appointed and recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), situated only in a small naval base in Tripoli and its so called Presidency Council (PC). And further ordered Libyans to work together to fix the economic crisis by recognising that the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) need to only collaborate with the GNA/PC, so out of touch with the real issues on the ground in Libya are the G7 Countries. Their language almost expressed in colonial terms!

    Other global interference in Libya continues. Most recently also the GNA and Presidency Council (PC) leader Fayez Serraj was seeing the head, at his HQ in Stuttgart, of the United Stated Africa Command (AFRICOM) General Thomas Waldhauser. I didn't know Stuttgart was in Africa?

    Other pronouncements of one kind or another backing the phantom GNA appear almost weekly.

    All a waste of time, as UN and EU efforts have proven these past years. As far as Serraj is concerned he is unelected by Libyans but chosen by the foreigners. That's never going to achieve forward progress for Libya's future.

    The one year anniversary of the General National Accord (GNA) created by the UN and headed by Serraj was on the 30th March just two weeks ago. But the GNA doesn't function. To compound the GNA's inability to govern, an acute emergency has emerged in the last 7 days revolving around further direct sales by Cyrenaica (East Libya) of oil bypassing Tripoli and the West. If this issue remains unresolved the country may split into two or three pieces. There is now tremendous in-fighting between National Oil Company (NOC) and a variety of diverse interests. The West's reactions to these realities remain puzzling and totally unrealistic to say the least.

    A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority.

    These developments are part of a new dynamic that is entering the Libyan Civil War that is another trend that may satisfy weary Libyans themselves. The re-entry of two of Gaddafis children who are seeking a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to South Africa's, in order to bring unity to the country. Specific Libyan tribes are starting to back the Gaddafi clan a new and hopefully peaceful attempt at country unification may appear that ousts the GNA and other Tripoli militias and extremists for good from the political scene. This is becoming a realistic proposition.

    It is to this point that national reconciliation must be addressed. South Africa's process helped to unify the country after decades of apartheid.

    The LNA's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is close to Elders of Warfalla tribe that give him their support in the war against terrorism. Warfalla tribe is the biggest tribe in Libya located in Bani Walid and Sirte area, the Warshfana tribe is second located to the South West of Tripoli. Both tribes are from the west of Libya and both are against extremists and very sympathetic to the Gaddafis. Importantly, the tribes believe that the Gaddafis can reach an accommodation with Libyan parties to one another forgive crimes committed before and after the revolt of 2011. Already, evidence can be seen of this trend: In the past week, Libyan authorities have released some Gaddafi era nobles from prison. The involvement of the former AQ-LIFG fighters to take credit for these releases is a vain attempt to try to align themselves with Gaddifites which will never succeed.

    While the limelight is on Saif, who still is believed to suffer from physical and mental injuries sustained during his capture, his sister Aisha Gaddafi is fast becoming the most important member of the family. She is generating a good deal of attention and she may well be very influential in future. Aisha is a pragmatic and sensible Libyan with acute political acumen and a sharp wit and intellect. She has a dynamic personality and is the most well educated of the Colonel's siblings. There is an argument that she needs to return to the political scene. Whether she wants to, no one knows due to her low profile so far.

    However with Aisha's victory last week in the European Court of Justice against the UN Security Council-sponsored sanctions this may very well be the first indicator. She has also had her travel ban lifted. A major achievement. Together with her brother, when he achieves 100 percent fitness, both Gaddafi's can begin to work together with all Libyans to rescue the country from its dreadful plight as part of a team never a return to dictatorship.

    This tandem approach -Gaddafi siblings and the Tribes- is the possible solution to Libya's civil war. Haftar recognizes the values of tribes and the Libyan Field Marshall is now using all his might to solidify and unify all Libyans whilst continuing to fight terrorists. As stated earlier, South Africa's dismantling of decades of apartheid serves as the example, the model for Libya.

    The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to help deal with what awful things happened under apartheid, much worse than Gaddafi's crimes ever were. The remnants of conflict during this post-apartheid period resulted in still some limited violence and human rights abuses from all sides but no section of society escaped exposure or punishment.

    Libya is suffering under a system of constant outside international interference in a Libyan decision about their own future. Self-reflection is an important part of reconciliation and it is thought that if the Gaddafis assistance in such an effort will help in a "cleansing" to build a new Libyan future, this would be a good thing. Of course, Libya is not South Africa, and the issues completely different, yet it is the process of reconciliation and forgiveness itself which has its primordial roots in today's modern Libyan tribes.

    Russia involvement with Egypt is essential. Also African countries must unite to help Libya through this process, not US's AFRICOM, UN or even the EU. The only other country that appears to be a true friend to Libya is the UAE who also have the advantage of being anti-Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous sect that has influence in the West of Libya.

    If body language is anything to go by, this picture (of Mohamed bin Zayed, the powerful Crown Prince of the UAE with Haftar) taken last week in Abu Dhabi speaks volumes!


    bigger

    Let us hope finally for a peaceful conclusion to the tragedy that has been Libya for these past six years.

    Thomas Bargatzky | Apr 19, 2017 5:38:53 AM | 2
    AFRICOM headquarters are in Stuttgart, because Gaddafi was adamantly against its location on Africa's soil. One of the reasons for NATO's war against Libya and the killing of Gaddafi.
    Jeff | Apr 19, 2017 5:40:38 AM | 3
    If only we could get a similar update for Yemen, where only continued famine and bombing seem on the agenda.
    And Somalia is such a black hole that not even its despair and deaths reach the MSM or social networks.
    guidoamm | Apr 19, 2017 7:02:37 AM | 4
    Only tangentially relevant to this post, but Libya is a good example of the power we have allowed our politicians to confer to central banks.

    Few will remember that whilst the war in Libya was raging, somehow, some faction found it both relevant and a priority to announce the creation of the central bank of Libya. This piece of news was reported far and wide by the international press too.

    jfl | Apr 19, 2017 7:49:10 AM | 5
    i hope the libyans can rally round aisha gaddafi and put their country back together. they need to keep the us/eu out of the country. sue for damages - at least, and bigtime - in international court if they are unable to prosecute the war criminals themselves. show the iraqis and the syrians and the afghans and the ukrainians and everyone else how war criminals must be treated.
    Alieu | Apr 19, 2017 7:51:35 AM | 6
    Libya deserves far more attention than it gets. The war is still going on there but receives no attention because the deaths there are not politically useful anymore. That's why after 2011 all the media coverage shifted to Syria. If the Israel/Nato alliance had their way, Syria would now be in the same situation Libya is - a failed state. This is what they mean when they refer to "bringing democracy" to the Middle East.

    Only Russia's intervention in August 2013 prevented that, which explains why they decided to punish Russia by organising the "regime change" in Ukraine and spreading the chaos to Russia's doorstep. Ukraine is now also a failed state with two different governments embroiled in a civil war. Funny how that always seems to be the result of the Israel/Nato alliance bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries - it's almost as if that was their plan all along...

    Mina | Apr 19, 2017 8:05:48 AM | 7
    The colonial language used by the EU and others is precisely what fuels people to join Djihadists movements. Is it on purpose?
    Eugene | Apr 19, 2017 8:52:29 AM | 8
    Perhaps Libya will be brought together again, the world can hope. Will that old saying: "what goes around, comes around" ring true on this? Colonialism is alive still, but there are those who just don't see the light. One fact is certain, the "war on terror" birthing after 9-11, if anything, created the mother of all C-F's to date. One might get the impression that the end game is to destroy the U.S./western ways?
    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 9:53:15 AM | 9
    Alieu 6

    We don't hear much of US (Hillary, Obama, etc) "successes" in Libya from the US MSM. It's shameful that the UN tries to force govt from above (with outsiders) on these people like the US does in places like Iraq. What happened to the other two govts in Tripoli and Tobruk? I doubt any govt in the east will go along due to extremist influences and greed to dominate oil in that area. I wish Gaddhafis all the luck and success in fixing the wrong done to them and bringing this to the world. It's bad enough the US and especially western media participation in the death, destruction, pain, and suffering.

    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 9:56:08 AM | 10
    Re: the photo
    Haftar had better hope Zayed's left hand does not contain a knife. The emirates and saudis are not known to be trustworthy fans of others in the ME neighborhood who do not conform.
    Greenbean950 | Apr 19, 2017 10:20:02 AM | 11
    AFRICOM is in Stuttgart because it was created out of the staff from US EUCOM (European Command). At first, the staff sections did both areas of operations (Europe & Africa). Once additional staff officers and NCOs were sent to EUCOM, AFRICOM was separated from EUCOM, but stayed in Stuttgart. AFRICOM was moved to another base in Stuttgart, Kelly Barracks. EUCOM is on Patch Barracks - a few miles away. The German government was quite displeased at the addition of a major US headquarters in their country, but had little power or courage to do anything except grumble. The US DoD wanted to put AFRICOM in Africa, but there were no countries willing to accept it that were in any way safe for families. When no options in Africa were viable, the US simply created the new headquarters in Stuttgart.

    I am a retired US Army officer that was assigned to US EUCOM from 2008-2009.

    jawbone | Apr 19, 2017 10:26:49 AM | 12
    How to understand the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) and its love of lies.

    The MCM will report factual truths, but usually buried somewhere in a long article, bracketed by the acceptable lies. Or, if the inconvenient truths do get an article of their own, those facts are subsequently ignored by the MCM with the lies being repeated over and over.

    And, then, even the lies become the conventional wisdom.

    Such as has happened with the lies about the August 2013 chemical attack in Syria. The MCM did note that the proof was not there to accuse the Syrian government, BUT it was buried and ignored and now, in 2017, it is accepted history that the Assad government did attack their own supporters with sarin.

    It's enough to make one never trust anything the MCM puts out.

    Which is probably the whole point.

    canuck | Apr 19, 2017 11:12:43 AM | 13
    Again b is mistakenly describing the attack on Libya as a civil war. A civil war is a war between different factions of a country; the war against Libya was carried out al most entirely external forces, by NATO and mercenaries. This constant reference to the attack on Libya, and indeed the attack on Syria, as civil wars, is the language of propaganda.

    Massive bombing by NATO led to the death and wounding of at least many tens of thousands of Libyans, and the destruction of much infrastructure, followed by hell on earth via head choppers and mass murdering and raping mercenaries.

    Libya in 2010 was leading the UN human development index for Africa, with a high standard of living, high literacy rate, largely happy and healthy people, with free education and health care, and generous financial presents for marriage and birth, and wonderful development projects. Blacks were doing well there. When Gaddafi took over, Libya was a colonized, wretchedly poor basket case.

    Libya had built up large gold reserves on the basis of its high quality oil and was attempting to implement a pan African alternative to the parasitic and criminal western banking system and its debt enslavement of much of Africa.

    Lurid lies were used to 'justify' a 'no fly zone' via the UNSC and this was then used to commit the ultimate crime according to Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression, by NATO and their useful mercenary monsters.

    The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 19, 2017 11:24:58 AM | 14
    What's interesting is the lack of interest in JASTA. I brought it up yesterday and there was nothing but silence. Hmmmm. One would think it would be ripe for critical dissection at this venue considering the revelatory implications that could possibly emanate from it. Unless. That's it. I think it's the unless. I'll let you guess what the unless is. Let me just say, it's what I've always known to be true.

    Where do Trump & Sessions stand on JASTA? If Trump truly is a patriot and believes his jingoistic "America First" rhetoric, then he has to support the integrity of this legislation and direct his DOJ and all the alphabet agencies to comply and let the chips fall where they may and act accordingly to the facts. Or he can be a Saudi chump and continue to bomb Yemen and Syria for the Saudi pricks.

    Needless to say, this is getting hardly any coverage in the press. Gee, I wonder why? But I expected different at this venue. Not really.

    9/11 Families File Complaint with Department of Justice

    On March 29, 2016, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism organization filed a letter with the Department of Justice to request the DOJ commence an immediate national security investigation into potential widespread criminal violations of the Foreign Regisration Act ("FARA"), by foreign agents retained to conduct what we view as an unprecedented foreign influence campaign on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    The apparent goal of the massive Saudi-funded foreign agent offensive is to delude Congress into passing unprincipled and unwarranted amendments to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrrorism Act ("JASTA").

    In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted U.S. veterans nationwide through a campaign that deeply mischaracterizes JASTA, and even more importantly has been conducted in ways that conceal the fact that the influence and propaganda onslaught has been and continues to be orchestrated and financed by the Saudi government and foreign agents working on its behalf. Read full complaint here: http://passjasta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FARA-COMPLAINT-20170329.pdf

    james | Apr 19, 2017 11:57:08 AM | 17
    thanks richard for these periodic updates..

    i 2nd @5 jfls comments and hope they can move forward with the children of gaddaffi in forming a gov't and coalition.

    @7 mina.. i think you have the answer - yes.. every time the usa state dept mention libya it is in the context of everyone working with the gna.. i guess that will give the required structure for continued abuse from the west - bend over and take this..

    Curtis | Apr 19, 2017 12:05:54 PM | 18
    Among the west's successes in Libya is the return of slavery. That's not in the US MSM news even though it has made it to DW/Guardian.
    Mike Maloney | Apr 19, 2017 12:11:21 PM | 19
    Libya is hard to read. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE are supposed to be supporting Haftar. Then France issues a statement yesterday supporting Serraj and the GNA in the wake of Haftar's Libyan National Army attack on Tamenhant air base in the south. Italian troops were reported to be stationed at Tamenhant working with the pro-GNA militias there.
    AtaBrit | Apr 19, 2017 2:34:51 PM | 20
    Fascinating article.
    Inspiring in that the T&R process allows the Libyans to take their future into their own hands - A fundemental right!
    But that the Gadaffis might actually be the key to the future of Libya is a resoundingly damning indictment of the West's actions!
    It also occurs to me how very imbalanced is the media coverage of the ME conflicts.
    Thanks, b, for providing the forum for such writing. And look forward to more articles, Richard.

    ProPeace | Apr 19, 2017 6:54:49 PM | 21

    Good news! Yemenis shoot down Saudi Black Hawk, at least 12 Saudi troops killed
    smuks | Apr 19, 2017 7:07:54 PM | 22
    Looks like they got rid of ISIS for good, even if some of its former fighters are probably still in the country. Good. Without major external assistance (as in 'massive air strikes and special forces'), no side is strong enough to conquer the entire country. This being obvious, there should be a good chance that they'll come to some sort of national unity agreement.

    Which is pretty much what I predicted in an article in early 2016.

    telescope | Apr 19, 2017 8:17:58 PM | 24
    Why would anyone even care about what the West thinks or wants? Clearly, it's a troubled, fast-declining polity that is desperately trying to cling to the glory days that are long gone, and will never return. It'll be getting weaker with every passing year.

    As soon as Trump becomes serious about tackling the US trade deficit, the globalization will stop and then kick into ferocious reverse, as the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons. Globalization in its present form is devastating America's core, and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.

    Once it's over, everything that globalization had birthed - the EU, the Singapores and Dubais of the world, the Israel - the end of globalization will bring to an inevitable denouement.

    Libya will be taken over by a neighboring country that is becoming hideously overpopulated and is in a dire need of additional living space and inexpensive energy. Egypt simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.

    jfl | Apr 19, 2017 9:18:47 PM | 25
    @24 telescope, '... the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons ...'

    the whole thing is sustained by the globalized 1%'s willingness to inflict unrelenting economic punishment purely for their own economic 'well-being' ... 'profit', at any rate. they've made a joke of money as 'a store of value' and - i agree - 'Globalization in its present form is devastating America's (all the west's) core, and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.'

    as for egypt - overpopulated - taking over libya - 'underpopulated' ... they'll certainly have to do that without russia's help ... think of the precedent that would set vis-ŕ-vis russia-china! or do you envision a takeover of russia by china as being in the cards ... that china, too, simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.

    ProPeace | Apr 19, 2017 9:32:45 PM | 26
    Any news on the Great Man Made River?
    Pft | Apr 20, 2017 12:06:57 AM | 27
    Libya has a central bank now and no longer exports as much oil to China as it once did. The people no longer get free health care and education. Why does anyone believe that the powers that be care much about anything else.
    jfl | Apr 20, 2017 12:27:05 AM | 28
    @26 pp

    no news. i have these links if anyone is unfamiliar ...

    Libya's "Water Wars" and Gaddafi's Great Man-Made River Project
    War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure

    Mina | Apr 20, 2017 2:11:57 AM | 29
    #27: they DO care a lot. you see the positive results of their military campaign, when people have none of these. like in Egypt, KSA, Jordan and all the major allies.

    As of today, 40 mass graves have been discovered in Kassai (Congo Kinshasa=DRC) and 2 UN inspectors sent to enquire there were killed ten days ago. But who cares?

    Mina | Apr 20, 2017 2:18:23 AM | 30
    Mike, in Libya France has had a hand in two camps: with Haftar when in relation with some military deals with the Gulf but from the start, when it comes to their MB business plan, with the Benghazi militias
    http://international.minbarlibya.com/2016/11/06/french-emirati-airbase-in-libya-supporting-khalifa-haftar-operations/
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/07/21/u-n-sanctioned-libyan-military-helicopter-containing-french-troops-crashes-in-libya/
    claudio | Apr 20, 2017 2:50:12 PM | 31
    b, the name of the italian city is LUCCA
    Curtis | Apr 20, 2017 2:53:09 PM | 32
    Mina 30
    I believe the initial oil deals the NTC signed were with France. But according to this, Qatar played a part, too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/25/libya-oil-deals-transparent-scrutiny

    In that article, it's funny to think of the NTC wanting to bring back foreign oil workers after how they treated them especially the blacks from neighboring countries. Foreigners like that couple who sold Libya cleaning products had to face al Qaeda so they might not be eager to return. But that was 2011. The current status sounds mixed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/15/libya-national-army-oil-ports-sidra-ras-lanuf-russia-us

    In one of the books I read, there was a Libyan plan with the Chinese (and Russians?) to build a railway connecting Tripoli, Sirte, and Tobruk. But that ended with Gaddhafi gone.

    Sabotage | Apr 20, 2017 3:03:51 PM | 33
    It seems WWIII has just started. Sorry boys, no Pax Germana for you. Again.
    #Crymeariver.
    Tudaloo!

    [Apr 20, 2017] Oliver Stone Rages Against The Deep States Wonderful Job Of Throwing America Into Chaos

    Notable quotes:
    "... I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired. ..."
    "... It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals ..."
    "... well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after. ..."
    "... his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. ..."
    "... Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. ..."
    "... Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control. ..."
    "... We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    In March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :

    "we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."

    And strongly rejected the establishment's "the Russians are coming" narrative shortly after the election and correctly forecast that it wouldn't be long before the deep state pushed Trump into an anti-Kremlin position...

    "As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...

    I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald Trump . "

    Stone was correct and in a Facebook post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's wilful ignorance).

    "So It Goes"

    I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired.

    It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.

    It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid when he's clearly winning the civil war?

    No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it a State.

    Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?"). No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'

    No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something far more sinister waits in the background .

    Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.

    Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country, my country, my heart aches for thee.

    FIAT CON -> knukles •Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM

    Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will cause any trouble. /s

    gregga777 -> SallySnyd •Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil, illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.

    VIS MAIOR -> gregga777 •Apr 19, 2017 7:53 PM

    135 000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vietnam-american-holocaust/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties ... 1000 years ban for usa on OL games and other + forever ban on all --

    they kill own 135 000 + thousand more after in usa from depresions, alchdrugs.. + 4 milions !!!! asians what fuckretard nations cancer is usa ..

    please delete usa from this planet ..PLEASE

    Tothguy1948 -> Savyindallas •Apr 19, 2017 11:43 PM

    well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.

    yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that

    his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand.

    Let it Go •Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM

    Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.

    Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/04/psychological-warfare-and-propaganda.html

    peterk •Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM

    trump is perhaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesn't really care about anything too much.

    he has been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight, as he isnt all that bright, so he just

    moves along when things get tough.

    he betrayed the USA

    Anonymous IX •Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM

    A very simple question.

    Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change? Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other countries in favor of the U.S.

    Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.

    Mr. Stone is right.

    Akhenaten II -> Anonymous IX •Apr 20, 2017 12:44 AM

    Trump works for Israel and the jewish mob. Always has.

    We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. The only saving grace is that this play is nearing its last act before they knock the entire theatre down, to be abandoned like the Coliseum.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell: Russian meddling in US election is the political equivalent of 9/11

    Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'état against Trump/
    Notable quotes:
    "... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.businessinsider.com

    Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.

    Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and 2013, told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed in a new CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack on our very democracy."

    "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11."

    [Apr 19, 2017] Ex-CIA Director's kill Russians in Syria comment reveals neocon influence

    Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never was in field operations
    Notable quotes:
    "... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
    "... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
    "... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
    "... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
    "... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
    "... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
    "... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
    "... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Op-Edge 'Ex-CIA Director's 'kill Russians in Syria' comment reveals neocon influence' Published time: 13 Aug, 2016 12:53 Edited time: 14:38

    I want to scare Assad Mike Morell (Aug 8, 2016) Charlie Rose

    Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?

    Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.

    "We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price," Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way that "Moscow would get the message."

    Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's "Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other tantalizing bits of information.

    'Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' says ex-CIA chief backing #Clintonhttps://t.co/qd21Klts2Npic.twitter.com/Otcuwniwxw

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 9, 2016

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning?

    John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W. Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it.

    Ray McGovern: What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him.

    JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters. Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.

    #WatchingTheHawks SoundCloud Episode 44.2 is here of our best segments! @TabethaWatching@TyrelWatchinghttps://t.co/dxYcjCww42

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 13, 2016

    RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria?

    JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.

    This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding like that? What is his motivation for doing this?

    RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on 11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go? It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [Apr 19, 2017] A Lawless Plan to Target Syrias Allies by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
    "... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
    "... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking – was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.

    On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan" for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive, too.

    Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying to help Morell explain what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into submission.

    Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

    In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    In the follow-up interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.

    Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in the world).

    Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.

    The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.

    But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.

    What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.

    Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a prospective President Hillary Clinton.

    A Slight Imprecision?

    Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."

    TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

    Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change" in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional government that represents all of the Syrian people.

    "That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries, in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.

    "And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.

    "So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition. And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)

    Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on the ground."

    Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.

    "So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)

    "You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here, just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of this.

    "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it."

    Acts of Illegal War

    Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."

    Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.

    Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.

    However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.

    Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the arming and training of anti-government rebels (including some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria (aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish rebels.

    Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international law.

    And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists," except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously muddled thinking do we have here?

    One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington. And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to Moscow.

    A Fawning Audition

    Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

    Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think the public needs to know."

    And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie, I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus, I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust her word and I trust her judgment."

    Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?

    FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."

    For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity" and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.

    My Travails With Charlie

    Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor the Presbyterian wing of JINSA " (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

    The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary, "Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation that had originally been extended to him.

    True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided to spare myself the trouble.

    The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto YouTube. It might be worth a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    [Apr 19, 2017] Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT \n

    300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
    1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
    2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
    3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.

      To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership

    [Apr 15, 2017] Populist regimes in Latin America are either out or under siege

    Notable quotes:
    "... Once again the opportunity to transform society down there has come apart ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    paine -> anne... , April 14, 2017 at 09:55 AM
    Related

    Populist regimes in Latin America are either out or under siege

    Once again the opportunity to transform society down there has come apart

    Policy choices must be examined
    post mo

    anne -> anne... , April 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM
    Where in 1980 real per capita Gross Domestic product in China was a mere 6.4% that of Brazil, in 2016 per capita GDP in China was larger than that of Brazil or 101.4% that of Brazil.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria

    A "chicken hawk" is a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict." Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... this is "tantamount to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding" back in the 1940's. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, this just became better proven.
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Let's go through the logic: There are actually two ISIS manifestations.

    One is "virtual ISIS." It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through the internet. It has adherents across Europe and the Muslim world. In my opinion, that ISIS is the primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated - from London to Paris to Cairo - to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents.

    The other incarnation is "territorial ISIS." It still controls pockets in western Iraq and larger sectors of Syria. Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria - plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies - and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate.

    Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.

    Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.

    So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.

    What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.

    I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?

    This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.

    Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.

    --> Sharon5101 Rockaway Beach Ny April 12, 2017

    How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?

    Cathy Hopewell Junction April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.

    Trump is a checkers player. King Me!

    He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.

    Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self interested and big on hegemony.

    Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.

    Patrick Stevens Mn April 12, 2017

    Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama? Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
    Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers, and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect plan.
    That is the answer to your question.

    Jack Hartman Douglas, Michigan April 12, 2017

    The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and political assets.

    In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.

    Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.

    That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.

    Bruce Rozenblit is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO April 12, 2017

    This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy. There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls from it.

    Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction. His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?

    M.I. Estner Wayland MA April 12, 2017

    Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical things are just being illogical.

    In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.

    But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.

    Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his desired image.

    One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about other people.

    Lawrence Kucher Morritown NJ April 12, 2017

    Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
    to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
    in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
    "secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
    This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
    Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
    golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
    Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
    Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
    (I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)

    Larry Eisenberg is a trusted commenter New York City April 12, 2017

    Commenting on Trump is degrading
    All logic and sense he's evading,
    Bankruptcy's his gambit
    Illogic his ambit
    His ego growth isn't abating.

    A TV reality show
    Is about the one thing he does know
    A statesman he's not
    The POTUS we've got
    As a learner? Egregiously slow.

    Dan Welch East Lyme, CT April 12, 2017

    Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference. So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.

    Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    "I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free?"

    Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?

    As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized Americans converted to jihadism online.

    The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.

    Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking (not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's (and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.

    soxared, 04-07-23 Crete, Illinois April 12, 2017

    "Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah."

    Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the tweet? He doesn't know what to do.

    Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and "deal with it."

    It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.

    I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.

    He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.

    Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich April 12, 2017

    "The Trump foreign policy team"

    Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."

    There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know what he's doing. They slash at each other.

    So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.

    My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no "foreign policy team."

    Hal Donahue Scranton April 12, 2017

    Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back. The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major media approval, began identifying terrorists as 'Islamic'.
    Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?

    Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.

    Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.

    Hugh CC Budapest April 12, 2017

    I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But Mr. Friedman, there isn't.

    Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's just figure out how to run him from office.

    Michael California April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to fall short:

    "And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"

    Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.

    IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.

    John LeBaron MA April 12, 2017

    The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.

    Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different Middle East today.

    These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest military power resides.

    john.jamotta Hurst, Texas April 12, 2017

    Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.

    To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.

    Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile democracy.

    Joseph Huben Upstate NY April 12, 2017

    Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
    The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites, knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison gas.

    Bos is a trusted commenter Boston April 12, 2017

    ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?

    Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after 59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade

    While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes well to the world's future

    Joseph Thomas Reston, VA April 12, 2017

    The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to our country and the world.

    He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies and our adversaries.

    Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.

    Nice idea, though.

    roarofsilence North Carolina April 12, 2017

    There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen. Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.

    DanC Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan. He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.

    Aubrey Alabama April 12, 2017

    Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.

    Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments, our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.

    silver bullet Warrenton VA April 12, 2017

    In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS. He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.

    The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".

    Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't cash.

    James Landi Salisbury, Maryland April 12, 2017

    "Where's that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy... never happen.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Neocons Have Trump on His Knees

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.) ..."
    "... But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows." ..."
    "... But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The Democrats' Russia-made-Hillary-lose hysteria has pushed a weakened President Trump into the arms of the neocons who now have a long list of endless-war ideas for him to implement, reports Robert Parry.

    After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with Russia, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the battered President what he must do next: escalate war in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

    Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

    Star neocon Robert Kagan spelled out Trump's future assignments in a column on Sunday in The Washington Post, starting out by patting the chastened President on the head for his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at an airstrip in Syria supposedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government (although no serious investigation was even conducted).

    Trump earned widespread plaudits for his decisive action and his heart-on-the-sleeve humanitarianism as his voice filled with emotion citing the chemical-weapons deaths on April 4 of "small children and even beautiful little babies." The U.S. media then helpfully played down reports from Syria that Trump's April 6 retaliatory missile strike had killed about 15 people, including nine civilians, four of whom were children.

    However, for Kagan, the missile strike was only a good start. An advocate for "regime change" in Syria and a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which pushed for the Iraq War, Kagan praised Trump "for doing what the Obama administration refused to do," i.e. involve the U.S. military directly in attacks on the Syrian government.

    "But," Kagan added, "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration's policies over the past six years."

    Kagan continued: "Trump was not wrong to blame the dire situation in Syria on President Barack Obama. The world would be a different place today if Obama had carried out his threat to attack Syria when Assad crossed the famous 'red line' in the summer of 2013. The bad agreement that then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry struck with Russia not only failed to get rid of Syria's stock of chemical weapons and allowed the Assad regime to drop barrel bombs and employ widespread torture against civilian men, women and children. It also invited a full-scale Russian intervention in the fall of 2015, which saved the Assad regime from possible collapse."

    A Seasoned Propagandist

    Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.)

    Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

    But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows."

    But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran.

    "Russia has greatly expanded its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean," Kagan wrote. "Obama and Kerry spent four years panting after this partnership, but Russia has been a partner the way the mafia is when it presses in on your sporting goods business. Thanks to Obama's policies, Russia has increasingly supplanted the United States as a major power broker in the region. Even U.S. allies such as Turkey, Egypt and Israel look increasingly to Moscow as a significant regional player.

    "Obama's policies also made possible an unprecedented expansion of Iran's power and influence. If you add the devastating impact of massive Syrian refugee flows on European democracies, Obama's policies have not only allowed the deaths of almost a half-million Syrians but also have significantly weakened America's global position and the health and coherence of the West."

    Trump's Probation

    Yes, all that was Obama's fault for not invading Syria with a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops because that's what would have been required to achieve Kagan's "regime change" goal in Syria. And there's no reason to think that the Syrian invasion would have been any less bloody than the bloody Kagan-advocated invasion of Iraq. But Kagan and the neocons never take responsibility for their various bloodbaths. It's always someone else's fault.

    President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    And now Kagan is telling Trump that there is still much he must do to earn his way back into the good graces of the neocons.

    Kagan continued, "Trump, of course, greatly exacerbated these problems during his campaign, with all the strong rhetoric aimed at allies. Now he has taken an important first step in repairing the damage, but this will not be the end of the story. America's adversaries are not going to be convinced by one missile strike that the United States is back in the business of projecting power to defend its interests and the world order.

    "The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."

    And confrontation is surely what Kagan has in mind, adding:

    "Instead of being a one-time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy to rebalance the situation in Syria in America's favor. That means reviving some of those proposals that Obama rejected over the past four years: a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, the grounding of the Syrian air force, and the effective arming and training of the moderate opposition, all aimed at an eventual political settlement that can bring the Syrian civil war, and therefore the Assad regime, to an end.

    "The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient military assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and to be sure that American forces will be ready if they do.

    "Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong U.S. response in Syria would make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."

    On His Knees

    To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees, they are demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).

    Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

    This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some sources claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.

    As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Obama, Nuland oversaw the U.S.-backed putsch that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, replacing him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime, the move that touched off civil war in Ukraine and sparked the New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. [For more on Kagan clan, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Family Business of Perpetual War ."]

    Clinton's defeat was a stunning setback but the neocons never give up. They are both well-organized and well-funded, dominating Official Washington's think tanks and media outlets, sharing some power with their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, who differ mostly in the rationales cited for invading other countries. (The neocons mostly talk about global power and democracy promotion, while the liberal hawks emphasize "human rights.")

    In dealing with the narcissistic and insecure Trump, the neocons and liberal hawks conducted what amounted to a clever psychological operation. They rallied mainstream media personalities and Democrats horrified at Trump's victory. In particular, Democrats and their angry base were looking for any reason to hold out hope for Trump's impeachment. Hyping alleged Russian "meddling" in the election became the argument of choice.

    Night after night, MSNBC and other networks competed in their Russia-bashing to boost ratings among Trump-hating Democrats. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, saw the Russia-gate hearings as a ticket to national glory. And professional Democratic strategists could evade their responsibility for running a dismal presidential campaign by shifting the blame to the Russians.

    However, besides creating a convenient excuse for Clinton's defeat, the anti-Russian hysteria blocked Trump and his team from any move that they might try to make regarding avoidance of a costly and dangerous New Cold War. The Russia-hating frenzy reached such extremes that it paralyzed the formulation of any coherent Trump foreign policy.

    Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war in Syria and intensify the New Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump's hasty decision to fire off missiles was a key turning point in the reassertion of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.

    It's also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia for Hillary Clinton's defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump so much that they let themselves be used in the service of neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies. Now, it may be too late to turn the train around.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Apr 12, 2017] The danger Turkey poses to Russia in Syria

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 · at 11:48 pm UTC
    @ Simon Chow

    I agree with you completely about the danger Turkey poses to Russia in Syria. You may even be right about this being a trap that Putin walked into by making a half-hearted military commitment to Syria and that now Drumpf decides to call the bluff by sicking Erdo on Russia exposed in Syria

    This would surely be catastrophic for Russia and Putin himself he would have no chance to continue as leader of this great nation. However that is making a big leap of faith about Putin's basic math skills and resolve. What if VVP decides to pick up the glove that Drumpf appears to be throwing down ?

    What then ?

    Do you or anyone think that the Russian military is unprepared to put in place a very strong road block to any aggression on Syria ? As I mentioned elsewhere it would take only a couple of Iskander rocket brigades to cut Erdo's tank army to shreds if the move on Syria proceeds

    I also believe that Russia is now moving in real time and is ready to spring its own trap as Professor Cohen noted on US TV today Russia is 'preparing for a hot war '. The rest of your comments about the Islamic threat to Russia's southern underbelly the first attempt with Chechnya in the '90s already failed badly

    No doubt West still dreams of this but it would be a major project of 10 or 20 years at least would take a lot of ground laying

    The idea that some kind of jihadist army is quickly going to march on Moscow is quite frankly silly

    I would say that China's problem in Xinjiang is just as serious if not more how many Uighur takfiris have traveled from PRC to fight in Syria ?

    Yet PRC does nothing At least Russia has Chechen military police in Syria and who knows what else that is operating in 'shadows'

    Do you think those bearded Uighur fanatics are going to come back home and continue the fight in Xinjiang with support of US George Soros Amnesty International NED etc ? Also Tibet ? You seem to have some blind spots when it comes to assessing geopolitical strength

    ' Syria is not essential to Russia except for Russia's economically premature claim to super power status '

    You sound like someone who needs a lesson in your own country's history

    ' In the 17th and 18th centuries, the demand for Chinese goods (particularly silk, porcelain, and tea) in the European market created a trade imbalance because the market for Western goods in China was virtually non-existent; China was largely self-sufficient and Europeans were not allowed access to China's interior. European silver flowed into China '

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

    Yes the Chinese were smart to conduct trade on their terms they told the English, French, Dutch and other colonial pirates [including America] that if they want Chinese tea then just bring silver and trade in one place where we allow it. Very good and wise policy .also incidentally followed at the time by Japan and Korea [another story]

    Only problem was you see the mighty British Empire thought it had the god-given right to rule the world like another country today

    They did not like the fact that they could not make anything off China and even had to buy silver from the Portuguese silver mines in Brazil for all the tea that Englishmen wanted to drink

    So here is what happened the Brits decided to 'open up' the Chinese market [I love that phrase how do you do that like with a can opener ?]

    You see the English had a nice little trade going in dope opium that they were growing in plantations in India which they ruled with an iron fist and they were making a nice business selling that to Chinese drug dealers under the table of course. And guess what the Chinese drug dealers were using to pay for that British dope if you guessed silver you would be right

    ' This reverse flow of silver and the increasing numbers of opium addicts alarmed Chinese officials '

    Gee you think ?

    ' In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor, rejecting proposals to legalise and tax opium, appointed viceroy Lin Zexu to solve the problem by abolishing the trade. Lin confiscated around 20,000 chests of opium (approximately 1210 tons or 2.66 million pounds) without offering compensation, blockaded trade, and confined foreign merchants to their quarters.[6] The British government, although not officially denying China's right to control imports of the drug, objected to this unexpected seizure and used its naval and gunnery power to inflict a quick and decisive defeat,[5] a tactic later referred to as gunboat diplomacy "

    Well gee that didn't turn out so well now did it ? China ended up having to 'open' its market to British dope while millions of Chines peasants destroyed themselves and their families as junkies

    After that China was basically 'subdued' by the colonialists pirates until they managed to get Hong Kong back a few years ago and even now the pirates are stirring up trouble there

    Sure the Imperial Russians jumped on China too after all Russian Czar and German Kaiser were first cousins colonialism was a great European gravy train for the elites of the day

    Russia got China to give it the railroad concession in Manchuria [btw not Han ethnic at that time] and Russians built a railroad and a city [Harbin] now a city of over 5 million people

    ' Polish engineer Adam Szydłowski drew plans for the city [Harbin] following the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway, which the Russian Empire had financed.[9] The Russians selected Harbin as the base of their administration over this railway and the Chinese Eastern Railway Zone. The Chinese Eastern Railway extended the Trans-Siberian Railway: substantially reducing the distance from Chita to Vladivostok and also linking the new port city of Dalny (Dalian) and the Russian Naval Base Port Arthur (Lüshun) '

    So what was the lesson in 'trading' with British /

    You can be very good and clever and not let foreigners get the better of you when selling them tea but unless you have guns that are bigger than theirs you may end up losing

    What is going on today ? China makes and sells the 21'st century equivalent of tea and porcelain iphones and walmart stuff

    Only now it is selling not for real money like silver but for IOUs printed by US banksters can be used to buy stuff in US not China maybe China wants to buy Disneyland ?

    Try to buy Boeing or Lockheed Martin with Chinese big stack of dollars see what US say

    Also can be used to buy US govt debt which allows US to print fake money to pay for its military industrial complex buy Russian rocket engines etc

    Isn't it great when markets are 'opened up' ? everybody wins

    My point is simply this please don't talk insultingly about Russian superpower 'pretensions'

    How many nuclear submarines does China make ?

    I hear recently China is making good progress on its first 'good' jet engine for its fighter aircraft

    You may know that only a handful of nations produce 'good' turbojet and turbofan engines in the world today US Russia UK France

    That China may soon join this exclusive club is something to be proud of

    In 2003 China put its first man in space

    ' In 1994, Russia sold some of its advanced aviation and space technology to the Chinese. In 1995 a deal was signed between the two countries for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology to China. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits. In 1996 two Chinese astronauts, Wu Jie and Li Qinglong, began training at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Russia. After training, these men returned to China and proceeded to train other Chinese astronauts at sites near Beijing and Jiuquan. The hardware and information sold by the Russians led to modifications of the original Phase One spacecraft, eventually called Shenzhou, which loosely translated means "divine vessel." '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_(spacecraft)#Design

    Mother Russia is always willing to help her friends

    I can also tell you about the Chinese army more than 60 years ago in Korea

    ' US Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced to retreat all the way back to South Korea The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history The Chinese broke through the American defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the South Korean capital. Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble

    One more thing to be proud of. I'm sure if you decided to become a little more serious about your studies you could find many more instances in your nation's history to be proud of. Belittling another country in order to make yourself seem bigger is how shall I put rather un-Chinese

    Actually very American

    [Apr 12, 2017] Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production, on self-reliance. As Putin noted, "Thanks, couldn't have done it without you"

    So, how is this for left field

    I agree, the US and China are economically interdependent.

    Trump wants to make America great again. Wants the jobs and the factories back. So, why not 'fry' China. Nuke Nth Korea, declare war on China after either a false flag or China retaliating.

    Then, as an enemy state, confiscate all China's assets in the US and repudiate any debt to China via Bonds etc. WTF is China going to do?

    Smile a lot???

    America is then forced to make things again, and getting rid of a few trillion in bond debt will help economically I expect.

    Concentrate on internal production and consumption.

    Oh yes, it is all a lot more complicated than that .. but think about it .. interesting scenario

    And it would fit in with Trumps child-like simple view of the world.

    We are still essentially a group of nation states, basically at war because each state only acts in its own interests. Until we can work together as a common humanity, war seems the only way to resolve differences.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:41 am UTC
    You may need to educate your self with some simple facts: 18.3% of Chinese export goes to US and 15% of US export goes to China. Anything happen to trade with US will hurt, but Chinese can Manage.

    US can frozen Chinese asset, and Chinese will hit where it hurts. There are plenty of American finial products in China and China will have her pick.

    Like Germans said to Trump, "We are not a nation without means, and we will fight back!" I have yet see China fail to retaliate any so called punishment from US.

    I fail to see why a smart people like you running with some one who is not living in this reality.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:00 am UTC
    TYS, you are wrong on one thing: The Chinese political apparatchiks are not idiots like their European, American and Russian liberal counterparts. You forget that credit inflation and deflation can be controlled by the CCB at will. It's a balance sheet operation in the accounting department. Bad debts can be cleared (bonds of economic useful actors can be bailed out – parasites like 90% of bond holders can go tits up) if need be. It's true that in the confines of neoclassical economic thinking an operation like that is unfathomable, but it is still just a technical operation which has to be executed in a planned manner. In contrast to the so called "free market in the West" the Chinese government has the means to get all necessary actors to comply and the ability to get the necessary information. The shadow banking system in China is a much bigger problem, once again not because the assets cannot be restructured, but because of the lack of control and, in some cases, the integral part they play in the Chinese economy.

    Many make the faulty assumption that money is somehow an integral part of our physical reality – it's not. A social unit of account, claim on work, the materialised form of consolidated power, is a necessary illusion to keep humans devided in a hierarchical power structure. This has nothing to do with physical laws, which cannot be manipulated. Humans can do whatever they want with the stored energy in form of atom bonds to electromagnetic radiation. If it means they want to push some electrons in the CB mainframe to get society to keep believing in real or electronic paper, they can do it. BTW the US debt was created though the transfer of reserves at the CB into an interest bearing asset e.g. treasuries. Translation: the Chinese swapped their reserves at the FED for treasuries. The US cannot default on its currency because its the SOLE issuer of it. It stupefies me to no end that the myth of a US default in DOLLAR is still discussed seriously. On the other hand, Chinese assessts in dollars are at a real risk. They CAN drop in value if the US were to create more dollar denominated credit with which it would buy up REAL assessts and not fictional wealth f.e. at the stock market.

    There are no economic laws. There is only an established social system which is very profitable for a few and is the legacy of a previous power struggle.

    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:15 pm UTC
    @ Nachtigall: Well put! The US put it's neck in the "reserve currency to the world" noose at Bretton Woods. An imperial overstep, the Daffy Duck in Aladdin's Cave moment "MINE MINE, ALL MINE!!!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIlCSBfksM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE0miV8YBBw

    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:54 pm UTC
    I agree that the Chinese leadership are not idiots, I don't believe I ever said they were.

    I repeat, the Chinese are not going to throw away their ability to gain access to western technology and corporations (or destabilize, any further, their social systems by disrupting their export oriented industries) by doing anything stupid like threatening the US with their current Empire currency & debt holdings. So I agree with you, I don't think the Chinese leadership are reckless idiots: that's my point.

    Have you forgotten that the Chinese economic growth has nearly halved even based on their faked inflated "official" 6.5 % GDP growth figures (their actual growth figure is between 3-4%)? They are not operating from a position of strength.

    Gold reserves, during a trade war, will not give the Chinese access to the Western technologies and assets they desire.

    Someone mentioned a scenario where the US will declare war on China in order to tear up their debt obligations to the Chinese and seize Chinese assets in the West. Why would they need to do that? One can easily make the counter argument: the US can provoke China into doing something wreckless and then default on China. Isn't that what the close shore patrols the US performs along China's coastline designed to underscore?

    Again, a very good point was brought up in the article, President Xi needs to do more than behave like a smiling Buddha: they continue to let Russia does all the heavy lifting (and dying). Let's see if they do finally step up to the plate, – I don't believe they will.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:44 pm UTC
    I agree with you. They are very cautious not to upset their dollar apple card, as you've rightly pointed out: the Chinese worked themselves like slaves to get this mountain of dollar reserves. I once picked up the rumor that the Russians tried to convince the Chinese to drop their dollar reserves on the market in 2008-2009 so as to crash the dollar, but again this would have meant shooting themselves in the foot. The US doesn't give s* about its debt, they don't have to default on anything because its their currency! So you're right the US could provoke China into doing something rash. Indeed China is very much an export driven economy, and they will absolutely do jack to threaten their position by getting into a military confrontations with the US. How do you even, like the Saker points out regularly, deal with war mongering freaks like the US officials? The US is itching to destroy its competitors by any means necessary.

    The crucial point I wanted to make, and this is what I mean by not being idiots, is that they know how they should play the capitalist game of smoke in mirrors, they know that the debt bubble in thw real estate sector is unsustainable, they know that they inflate GDP numbers, but here is the BIG difference (to eurocrats f.e.): If the real estate bubble pops the CB can bail out all useful actors and let the bad ones go bankrupt. It can create yuan at infinitum. It would send initially shock waves through the economy, but depending on the prudent restructuring of all the debts the economy can resume on working again. This is what no Western bureaucrat would dare to think – when they bail out something, it's parasites like JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Goldman and large funds, never small time debtors f.e. home owners. As I recall, Micheal Hudson talked about how Sheila Bair (EX FDIC Chairman) did suggest that you should save real people (depositor's money) instead of bank balance sheets, and that the FED was able to do that (a small summary of her views with a lot weasel words and smoke: https://jrc.princeton.edu/news/sheila-bair-former-fdic-chairman-discusses-financial-crisis ).

    This subject is much more complex than everything said by us, but I understand why Chinese officials refrain from doing the rational thing of restructuring the debts right now; i think they speculate on the fact that as long as the economy is growing they will continue to build cities, ports, planes, buy out western companies and infrastructure till the bell rings. After the process of consolidation I described they will reinflate the credit bubble again. They try everything at the same time. Reining in the shadow banking system, slowing down credit inflation and than restarting it again and letting the economy grow etc. China is trying to establish its very own yuan vacuum cleaner by which they can buy up (real!) assets like mines, factories etc. all over the world.

    That is the perspective of the capitalist class (not to speak of silly name calling like"communists"), take another viewpoint esp. in terms of the eco-system and all of this is a big fat net loss. They once tried to measure their "Green GDP" but quickly stopped doing that after it became apparent how much "natural capital" was destroyed each year.

    All of our terminology, definitions, ethics are sloppy and misleading by design if we talk about who decides what, when and who gets what, when and how much.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:40 pm UTC
    Interesting interview with Michael Hudson about the FIRE=FinanceInsuranceRealEstate sector:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/15/how-bankers-became-the-top-exploiters-of-the-economy/

    TYS on April 12, 2017 , · at 12:49 am UTC
    @Nachtigall

    Very well put. Thanks for elaborating in detail. I agree the very premise of "currency" based systems are virtualized models and artificial. Hudson's work is very revealing, I agree.

    Evilc on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:32 pm UTC
    @Nachtigall
    Very well put, but may I add that the 'economy' is an expression of energy; past, present and future and we (in the west anyway) have borrowed rather heavily from the future. We can print as much money as we want but we cant print energy, well not yet anyway.
    Little Black Duck on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:40 am UTC
    China has hedged its exposure to US debt by accumulating gold.
    When the US dollar crashes, gold will soar and the effect may well be beneficial to China even if they initiate the crash.
    It's the USA that is between a rock and a hard place.
    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:27 pm UTC
    Yup, China and Russia are divesting US$-based reserves, using those artificially inflated US$ instruments to buy physical gold at artificially deflated market prices literally hundreds of tonnes/year.

    Meanwhile the US has to buy/steal gold from other countries, bought about 220 tonnes from Canada to give about the same to Netherlands in the "rehypothecated WW2 safe-keeping gold repatriation scam", plus steal from Libya and Ukraine to do the same for Germany and France. The hegemon is in a weak position when the vassal states don't trust them to hold their physical gold and can demand it back.

    Russia and China have already set up an alternate international currency/exchange/trade system, using yuan-renminbi/ruble plus accommodating other local currencies. The only-US$-based WTO/IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT/etc. system can be bypassed if the US/Rothschilds decide to attempt any M.A.D. economic tactics.

    Simon Chow on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:24 pm UTC
    Yes I agree. Accumulating gold seems to be part of their plan. If the USD crash for whatever reasons, the rise in the price of gold will at least cover up for the loss in value of USD assets. I think China has enough gold to be now more than ready to dump USD assets; and the US knows this. This means that China can survive a crash of the USD but USA will not. That's why Trump is talking nice to Xi. Neither will the US survive if the USD is manipulated too high through interest rates by the Fed.
    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:07 pm UTC
    @ Little Black Duck

    The United States Reserve hold 8 times as much gold as China's. So where does your argument go now?

    If we include the BS internet rumor that China has unofficial holdings of an additional 9000 tonnes raising their total seizable holdings to 10,000 tonnes that is still dwarfed by US private holdings. Europe has comparable reserves in private and central bank hands. Finally, the country with largest gold holdings in both in govt and private hands is India, at approx 20,000 tons.

    So China has no net advantage here.

    Anonymous on April 12, 2017 , · at 3:40 am UTC
    Just look at the yearly production of gold in China, the gold that never reaches the market. The official Chinese reserves of 1,000 tones are nothing compared to it. Coupled with official Swiss mints data of gold export to China in the last 10 years, and you are coming really close to BS internet rumor numbers.

    When was the last time that US gold holdings were audited? Do you know that US had 24,000 tones of gold in 1945? They reduced their holdings for more than 15,000 tones from 1945 to 1971, and after that they didn't reduce it for an ounce?

    Peace on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:45 am UTC
    Saker, a pat on the back for you, excellent job. I don't expect but pray that the anglozionist read this article

    [Apr 12, 2017] If Assad is removed, Iran is the next and then Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
    "... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
    "... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
    "... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
    "... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
    "... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
    "... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
    "... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
    "... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
    "... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is

    But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors). This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect Syria against Daesh.

    If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.

    So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.

    I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!

    Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.

    [Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.

    I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and Russia in record time.

    So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda, it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.

    What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China, the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?

    Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group? Think again.]

    So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians

    The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.

    The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness.

    This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.

    [Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems. As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world" as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now, in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear that the entire planet already knows the truth!

    There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!

    Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might be changing.

    Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had nuclear underwater missiles since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]

    Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it.

    In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.

    Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.

    [Apr 12, 2017] A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences The Vineyard of the Saker

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    The pretext:

    I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat . Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have . He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack . Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

    a classical US-executed false flag a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don't. Unless, the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

    What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

    Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.

    Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past. You can read everything about this plan here and here .

    The attack:

    American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this point the accounts begin to differ.

    The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield. The others are "unaccounted for". Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target. That is a fact.

    It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.

    The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014 . The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

    Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just "for show" and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain why in the political analysis below.

    Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don't know if they did). However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to "fry" and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bolivia: a profile in courage ..."
    "... Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well. ..."
    "... Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/ ..."
    "... Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington. ..."
    "... Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage. Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

    Bolivia: a profile in courage

    And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent. No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.

    What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble.

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:21 am UTC
    Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well.

    Bolivia clearly condemned the strikes. Speaking at the emergency meeting to discuss the United States' missile strikes against Syria on Thursday, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, criticized the Trump's decision to take unilateral action against Syria, which he described as being "an extremely serious violation of international law."

    Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO)
    https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/

    Melotte 22 on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:35 am UTC
    Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington.

    Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Reports of African migrants being bought and sold in Lybia mark a new low in the Lybia West-induced crisis

    Apr 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , April 11, at 7:12 am

    You can thank NATO's aggression against Libya in 2011 for the reintroduction of slavery to the African continent.

    African migrants sold in Libya 'slave markets', IOM says


    Reports of African migrants being bought and sold mark a new low in the crisis

    Africans trying to reach Europe are being sold by their captors in "slave markets" in Libya, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says.

    Victims told IOM that after being detained by people smugglers or militia groups, they were taken to town squares or car parks to be sold.

    Migrants with skills like painting or tiling would fetch higher prices, the head of the IOM in Libya told the BBC.

    Libya has been in chaos since the 2011 Nato-backed ousting of Muammar Gaddafi.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39567632

    marknesop , April 11, 2017 at 5:07 pm
    Thanks, NATO. Most people would learn from their 'mistakes'. But not NATO – it can't wait for the next empowering liberation in the name of freedom and democracy.

    [Apr 11, 2017] The end of purple revolution: neocons have Trump on his knees

    Apr 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    that was one of fastest color revolutions in history. In less then 200 days Trump is on his knees.

    Pislyak | Apr 11, 2017 11:04:07 AM | 53

    Trump buckling under to these policies (from neocon Robert Kagan Washington Post, Sunday, April 9)reported by Consortium News:

    "The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."

    "Instead of being a one time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy to re-balance the situation in Syria in America's favor."

    "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of US power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration over the past six years."

    "The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and be sure that the American forces will be ready if they do . . ."

    "Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong response in Syria will make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/10/neocons-have-trump-on-his-knees/

    [Apr 11, 2017] After Trumps Syria Attack, What Comes Next

    Trump probably has a horse head in his bed
    Notable quotes:
    "... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
    "... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
    "... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history. Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country, President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles (at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.

    President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest." Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.

    From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.

    Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.

    Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?

    The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile?

    What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move. It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.

    Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!

    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 11, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Why Does Assad Have To Go -- With Lew Rockwell

    Apr 11, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Why Does Assad Have To Go? -- With Lew Rockwell

    It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's "Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad must go."

    Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/n7nQaXyvowA

    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 10, 2017] ANN COULTER POLICE STATE Is Now In The Control Of President Trump

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    John Graves 4 days ago Russian connection = Democrats Red Herring! They're experts at it. In reality a Nothing Burger! g bridgman 4 days ago The whole Russian conspiracy thing is so preposterous as to not even merit discussion yet the MSM has been all over it from at least 6 months. g bridgman 3 days ago Yes, if credit is the right word, they deserve an A+. It's amazing to me democrats are stupid enough to believe this wild conspiracy with no proof and the politicians pushing the narrative are cunning enough to realize their rank and file will believe the BS and continue to push it using the MSM as their vehicle. I suppose it is a stellar accomplishment in deception. It's also an extreme dis-service to the nation and could ultimately lead to the total destruction of the democratic party. RUHDD4HVN 3 days ago I smell a deep state set up to distract from all the crimes that are being committed within the US government. Distract, Divert, to Deceive.......The deep state doing what it does. They have now thrown President Trump into a political stumbling mode that will make it hard for him to catch his balance once again. Such a shame....... Aiz Mor 3 days ago RUSSIA did not care who won. There purpose is to make us look like police state, banana Republic., Embarrass us in front of the world. Which they have succeeded. This deep state they probably knew about: as well as the unmasking and leaking. The DNC cheating sanders, 45% of americans are basket of deplorable, christians are backward people, Pro life woman expelled from woman march, News outlets giving debate questions, it goes on and on. One caucus refuses to respect President, the other bunch wearing white...open riots to stop free speech.. it goes on and on and on.One of the best qualified Judges Fillabusted ( breaking 200 year od tradition) causing a need for rule change. .Because of political reasons mostly hurt feelings.. These people, politicians are a national disgrace. Just what Russia wanted..Russia did not care who won election.

    [Apr 09, 2017] http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-22

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.economist.com

    via @TheEconomist - Sep 30, 2015

    ... Tight ties between Russia and Syria stretch back more than four decades. During the cold war, a newly independent Syria aligned with the Eastern block. As a young man, Hafez Assad, Bashar's father, learned to fly fighter jets in the Soviet Union. Soon after taking power in a coup in 1970, the elder Mr Assad paid a visit to Moscow, seeking weapons and support. A lucrative arms pipeline started flowing; when Bashar came to power, he expanded the contracts, turning Russia into Syria's biggest supplier. The Syrian government also allowed the Soviet Union to build a resupply station at the port of Tartus, which is now Russia's sole remaining naval base in the Middle East and on the Mediterranean sea. Syria is also an important Russian military-intelligence base and listening post. Cultural connections elevated the relationship beyond the obvious strategic and commercial interests. Scores of Syrians came to study in the Soviet Union; many married and raised mixed families.

    Yet Russia's support for Mr Assad has less to do with Syria per se, than with the West. The Kremlin watched the Arab Spring in horror, seeing uprisings against authoritarian leaders as American conspiracies. While Mr Putin harbors no particular personal affection for Mr Assad, the Syrian leader has become a symbol of resisting "colour revolutions" and attempts at "regime change". Having backed Mr Assad thus far, allowing him to fall now would mean that Mr Putin is "retreating under American pressure, which is the one thing he cannot do," argues Georgy Mirsky of Moscow's Higher School of Economics. The latest gambit in Syria has also helped Mr Putin deflect attention from the unwon war in Ukraine and bring Russia back into the company of world powers-Mr Obama met Mr Putin at the UN General Assembly for the first time in two years. Mr Putin's message, both to the domestic audience and to the non-Western world, is that Russia remains indispensable to solving global problems, whether the West likes it or not.

    In keeping with his style, Mr Putin has opted to play hardball in Syria. Rather than contributing to the war's resolution, Russia's presence will likely deepen the conflict. While America has softened its stance on the need for Mr Assad's immediate exit, his presence presents an intractable obstacle to any cooperation between Russia's ad-hoc coalition (which so far includes Iran, Iraq and Syria) and America's. Yet with air defence assets already on the ground, the Kremlin can impose a no-fly zone for NATO forces; on Wednesday it declared a de facto one, though coalition countries said they were continuing to fly missions, raising the prospect of potentially disastrous accidents. So far, Russian officials emphasize that ground operations are not up for discussion. Support among the Russian population for intervention in Syria remains low, and the spectre of the Soviet Union's decade long war in Afghanistan still looms. Yet so too does the risk of mission creep. The more chips Mr Putin places on Syria, the harder it will be for him to fold.
    Reply Saturday, April 08, 2017 at 09:13 PM ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Soft propaganda.

    If the US were not supporting terrorists.

    "Rather than contributing to the war's resolution, Russia's presence will likely deepen the conflict."

    Russia is provide resources to prevent Saudi/GCC led, US supported, Sunni jihadis taking over Syria. And suppression of Shiite minorities.

    Regime change for the Emirs is wrong.

    Good thing they do not call the jihadi invasion of Syria a "civil war".
    Reply Sunday, April 09, 2017 at 04:42 AM libezkova said in reply to ilsm... ilsm,

    What do you expect from Economist? This is a neoliberal rag, hell-bent on globalism.

    Also UK can win lucrative deals for weapon supplies. All good. Reply Sunday, April 09, 2017 at 06:56 AM Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... Would we agree that 'Syria' is the latest
    chapter in the Shia-Sunni feud. This time
    (again) with nerve gas, either used by the
    'bad' guys to make the other side look worse,
    or the other way around? Reply Sunday, April 09, 2017 at 08:54 AM libezkova said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... "Would we agree that 'Syria' is the latest
    chapter in the Shia-Sunni feud."

    I actually don't. IMHO this is a neocons strategic geopolitical goal to weaken and isolate Iran as well as destroy remnants of Arab nationalist regimes.

    Shia-Sunni feud is a tool, not the goal.

    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

    == quote ==
    In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called "a policy coup" engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon's plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the "coup" being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called "a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century":

    Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Why haven't we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?"

    He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."

    Clark said the aim of this plot was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz - back in 1991 - in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won't stop us. And we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq - before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's desires because, as Clark put it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It's not to deter conflicts?"
    == end of quote ==

    It took a lot of money (as in trillions spend in Iraq) and planning to amplify the current Shia-Sunni feud.

    Before the USA invasion of Iraq, it was a secular state. Shite and sunny have frictions (government was dominated by sunnies, who were minority) but there were many intermarriages.

    Before the USA, Israel, Turkey and Gulf monarchies armed and trained Syrian opposition Assad was a brutal, but secular nationalist regime. It actually remains the same, but now it controls only a fraction of the country. The goal of decimation of Syria was first mentioned by Gen. Wesley Clark in 2007, long before 9/11.

    My impression is that it's mostly about neocons dominance in the USA foreign policy establishment. Reply Sunday, April 09, 2017 at 10:41 AM

    [Apr 08, 2017] Turning the tables: Duma committee to probe US media for meddling in Russian elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... preemptive retaliation ..."
    "... After the end of the US presidential elections, the American politicians who voiced very acute accusations targeting the Russian mass media, proceeded from words to real action ..."
    "... Once Reagan, discussing taxes, addressed Americans with 'Read my lips: No ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | www.rt.com
    The State Duma Committee for Information Policy, IT and Communications has decided to hold an investigation into the work of Western media outlets in order to examine possible attempts to influence election processes in Russia. The head of the committee, MP Leonid Levin (Fair Russia) told TASS that he and his colleagues would soon hold a special session with analysts and experts, at which they intend to look into the activities of such mass media organizations as CNN, Radio Liberty and Voice of America. Read my lips: NO – Putin says about Russia's 'meddling' in US elections

    The idea to launch a probe was proposed by MP Konstantin Zatulin of the majority United Russia party. In an attachment to the protocol letter, the lawmaker described the motion as " preemptive retaliation ."

    " After the end of the US presidential elections, the American politicians who voiced very acute accusations targeting the Russian mass media, proceeded from words to real action ," Zatulin wrote.

    This action includes, for example, a bill that gives Justice Department additional authority to investigate RT America for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, drafted recently by Democratic Party Senator Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire). Shaheen said in press comments that her bill was a response to a report from the director of national intelligence about Russian influence in the 2016 election.

    Moscow has repeatedly denied allegations of its role in the last US presidential elections. Most recently the rumors were dismissed by President Vladimir Putin as he spoke to journalists during the Arctic Forum in late March.

    " Once Reagan, discussing taxes, addressed Americans with 'Read my lips: No !'" Putin said, answering a question posed by the anchor of the forum.

    [Apr 04, 2017] Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel by Eli Lake

    Apr 04, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com
    White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

    The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

    The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

    The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

    Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

    Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

    Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said : "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

    Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

    But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

    The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

    The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.

    Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

    [Apr 04, 2017] Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards.

    Apr 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 04, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    US Military Should Get Out of the Middle East Jeffrey Sachs, Boston Globe

    It's time to end US military engagements in the Middle East.

    Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards. Over and done with.

    That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS, terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and other US security interests, but a military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest path for the United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical precedents.

    America has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared repeatedly in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the Roman empire till today, the issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a local one. It usually can, just as the United States did quickly in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

    The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so. Following such a "victory," the imperial power faces unending heavy costs in terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and terrorist blowback.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/03/us-military-should-get-out-middle-east

    anne -> RGC... , April 04, 2017 at 08:42 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/the-empire-slinks-back.html

    April 27, 2003

    The Empire Slinks Back
    By NIALL FERGUSON

    Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits. -- Seneca

    Iraq has fallen. Saddam's statues are face down in the dust. His evil tyranny is at an end.

    So -- can we, like, go home now?

    You didn't have to wait long for a perfect symbol of the fundamental weakness at the heart of the new American imperialism -- sorry, humanitarianism. I'm talking about its chronically short time frame. I wasn't counting, but the Stars and Stripes must have been up there on the head of that statue of Saddam for less than a minute. You have to wonder what his commanding officer said to the marine responsible, Cpl. Edward Chin, when he saw Old Glory up there. ''Son, get that thing down on the double, or we'll have every TV station from here to Bangladesh denouncing us as Yankee imperialists!''

    An echo of Corporal Chin's imperial impulse can be heard in the last letter Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse sent home before he and his Marine unit entered Iraq. Chanawongse joked that his camp in Kuwait was like something out of ''M*A*S*H'' -- except that it would need to be called ''M*A*H*T*S*F'': ''marines are here to stay forever.''

    But the question raised by Corporal Chanawongse's poignant final joke -- he was killed a week later, when his amphibious assault vehicle was blown up in Nasiriya -- is, Are the marines in Iraq ''to stay forever''? No doubt it is true, as President Bush said, that the America will ''honor forever'' Corporal Chanawongse and the more than 120 other service personnel so far killed in the conflict. Honored forever, yes. But there forever? In many ways the biggest mystery about the American occupation of Iraq is its probable duration. Recent statements by members of the Bush administration bespeak a time frame a lot closer to ephemeral than eternal. As the president himself told the Iraqi people in a television broadcast shortly after the fall of Baghdad: ''The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you. . . . We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.''

    What the president didn't make entirely clear was whether the departing troops would be accompanied by the retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his ''Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,'' newspeak for what would once have been called Omgus -- the Office of Military Government (United States). Nor was he very specific about when exactly he expected to see the handover of power to the ''peaceful and representative government'' of Iraqis.

    But we know the kind of time frame the president has in mind. In a prewar speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Bush declared, ''We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' It is striking that the unit of measure he used was days. Speaking less than a week before the fall of Baghdad, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, suggested that Garner would be running Iraq for at least six months. Other administration spokesmen have mentioned two years as the maximum transition period. When Garner himself was asked how long he expected to be in charge, he talked about just three months.

    If -- as more and more commentators claim -- America has embarked on a new age of empire, it may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all history. Other empire builders have fantasized about ruling subject peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's first thousand-day empire. Make that a thousand hours.

    Let me come clean. I am a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang. Two years ago -- when it was not at all fashionable to say so -- I was already arguing that it would be ''desirable for the United States to depose'' tyrants like Saddam Hussein. ''Capitalism and democracy,'' I wrote, ''are not naturally occurring, but require strong institutional foundations of law and order. The proper role of an imperial America is to establish these institutions where they are lacking, if necessary . . . by military force.'' ...

    [Apr 04, 2017] Senate's Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere

    Apr 04, 2017 | therealnews.com

    Michael Hudson explains that the Senate hearings on Russia are an effort by Democrats to torpedo improvements in Russia-US relations and lack any real evidence of Russian meddling

    William W Haywood • 2 hours ago He builds his story around Clapper being a truth teller? UNBELIEVABLE idiocy when you expect me to believe this crap! Seer • 5 hours ago Two top US experts on Russia, Professor Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern (ex-CIA analyst) and Robert David Steele (ex-CIA0 and Bill Binney (ex NSA) ALL state the Dems accusations are ALL BOGUS. I tend to believe them rather than mainstream media and wonder if RN is going mainstream soon? Marko • 6 hours ago " Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere "

    Nowhere involving Russia , perhaps , but they're leading somewhere involving the U.S. :

    http://www.zerohedge.com/ne...

    They're leading to the uncovering of an illegal political witch-hunt , probably on the orders of Obama , though Rice will likely take the fall. Said fall should include jail time , but we all know that elites don't "do" jail in the U.S. , unlike in the less-advanced democracies , like Iceland or S. Korea. Jon Henri Matteau • 7 hours ago Really, this collusion is what is harming any US Russian relation, that and the Ukraine issue. If there wasn't an issue, sit back and let the investigations prove it. We had NINE redundant investigations into an exaggerated scandal. what are people afraid of if this is pursued? weilunion • 8 hours ago They are designed by the deep state to lead to nowhere but destraction. Octavia Bee • 9 hours ago Oh my--how does Hudson know there is no evidence? Does he have some sort of top-secret security clearance? It's also curious how Hudson is so supportive of Putin, who is a horrific dictator.
    He's obviously another deluded Trumpster. Why would this man be given the role of an expert? Sad! Donatella Octavia Bee • 8 hours ago More empty rhetoric from the McCarthyite Democrat party. The Democrat party did not allow the government to inspect the server that was "hacked". Instead they used the information from a private company that depends upon them for income. So we really don't know if it was a hack or a leak by a Democrat insider like Seth Rich. Obama was more of a "horrific" leader killing tens of thousands of innocents than Putin. Anyone calling him a "dictator" is just either parroting talking points or is uninformed. Donatella Wallace • 7 hours ago As usual you are mindlessly parroting neocon or Democrats talking points. Putin won his last election with 63% of the votes cast. And yes, the oligarchs stole Russian wealth under Yeltsin with the help of the U.S. Yeltsin would have lost his reelection if it had not been for the intervention of American help. You should take your own suggestion and read some history.

    The only reason Russia has not experienced high growth is because of the U.S. imperial financial sanctions. The U.S. also pushed Russian into a closer alliance with China, which the U.S. will learn to regret. The U.S. is on a long-term decline and the 21st century will see a rising China and Russia.

    And yes, his annexation of Crimea by a 90+ vote by the Crimean voters (majority are Russian) is a good example of Putins populist strengthening of Russia. Better than letting the neo-Nazis in Kiev take over what has been Russian territory and give NATO a military base.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Matt Drudge Warns Trump Surrounded by Traitors, In Crisis Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind!

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.infowars.com
    "I do think there is a crisis, on many fronts," Drudge admitted.

    "Is some of it of his own making?" he asked before going to calls.

    The DrudgeReport.com founder indeed invoked his former radio host days when he joined Savage in California to celebrate the veteran broadcaster's 75th birthday.

    "We're trying to save this young Trump administration," Drudge declared.

    Drudge claimed Trump single-handedly saved floundering leftist media outlets like the New York Times and Vanity Fair, which seemed destined to fail before the "opposition" party "consolidated."

    "I'm getting a little bit nervous about the media situation. Do you know, the media was near death. The New York Times was hanging on the short hairs. Do you know Vanity Fair was going under. CNN barely had a fraction," Drudge said. "Trump has saved the media."

    The influential news figure also called attention to the president's flagging approval ratings in Rasmussen polls, which he is concerned currently spell danger for the Trump administration.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations and world financial organisations vs populists who express the interests of the people in their countries

    Apr 03, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Question: Today we see a growing split of the world political elites. There are globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations and world financial organisations and there is a new political concept, the so-called populists who express the interests of the people in their countries. A vivid example is the election of US President Donald Trump, and there are a number of other political leaders who are seen as fringe politicians in the West, for example Marine Le Pen. Given this, it is not by chance that Russia is seen as a leader in half of the world. Is this view justified? Can we talk about a future victory for one of these ideologies? How would this influence today's world order?

    Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn't call Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen "fringe politicians" if only because they absolutely fit into the principles that underlie the functioning of the American and French states. Marine Le Pen is a European member of parliament and her party is active in the national parliament. Donald Trump has been elected in full accordance with the American constitution, with its two-level indirect system of electing the president. I would not even call them populists. The word "populist" has a negative connotation. You said interestingly that populists are those who represent the people. There are nuances in the interpretation of the word "populist." In modern Russian it tends to be applied to people who go into politics, but do not bear the responsibility for their words and just seek to lure voters. A populist is someone who might promise to triple wages while the budget absolutely cannot support it, etc. So I would rather call them realists or anti-globalists, if you like. Having said that, anti-globalists are also associated with hooligans who try to disrupt the G20 and G7 summits, and so on. Come to think of it, even now that the new president of the world's largest power has declared that it is necessary to think not of global expansion, but of how America lives, the role of globalists will be changing. American corporations have already demanded a reduction in manufacturing in developing countries to move it to the US in order to create jobs there. Granted, this may not be very good news for the consumer because labour is more expensive in the US, so the prices for goods, cars and so on will increase. But this is the trend. In general, President Trump's conceptual slogans during his election campaign to the effect that America should interfere less in the affairs of other countries and address its own issues send a very serious signal to the globalists themselves. Again, up until now the US has been perceived as a symbol of globalism and the expansion of transnational corporations. Those who represent their interests are the huge team that has taken up arms against President Trump and his administration and in general against everything he does, and which tries, in any way possible, to throw a spanner in the works. Something similar things are happening in France where mountains of compromising materials of ten or fifteen years ago have been unearthed which invariably are presented through an "anti-Russia prism." It's been a long time since I've seen such a dirty campaign when at stake are the concepts and ideas of how to develop the state and their country, and a smear war is being waged. We had this not so long ago, and I don't see anything good about it.

    In parallel the global market and the global trade system are being reappraised through the actions and statements of the new US administration. As you know, they have walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and said they would work through regional and bilateral agreements. We believe, though, that the World Trade Organisation which it took us such a long time to join did provide a common umbrella for world trade. Some regional structures could be built into these universal systems so as not to break the ties with the non-members of these regional organisations to maintain some common contact and exchanges through the WTO. That too is now under threat. So, we are in a period of rethinking our approaches, and I don't think it has everything to do with Trump. These changes have been brewing; otherwise the American position on so many issues could not have changed so abruptly. They were long in coming, and the WTO was in a major crisis when the Western countries categorically refused to listen to the leading developing countries on a range of issues connected with investment, financial services, etc.

    I wouldn't say that there are globalists and populists. There are simply people who want to get elected and follow a well-trodden path and preserve the neoliberal structures that are all over the place in the West, and then there are people who see the neoliberalism and permissiveness which are part of the neoliberal approach as a threat to their societies, traditions and cultures. This is accompanied by philosophical reflections and practical discussions of what to do about the problem of illegal migrants, their own roots and religions, whether it is politically correct to remind people that you are an Orthodox or Catholic or whether you should forget about religion altogether. I have said more than once that the European Union wanted to adopt a constitution many years ago and was drafting it. The commission was headed by Giscard d'Estaing and he proposed a very simple sentence about Europe having Christian roots. He was prevented from doing so on the grounds that it would not be politically correct and would insult the Muslims. In reality it turns out that if you are cautious about making your religious roots known you end up not caring about the religious roots of others and the consequences are not usually good. Therefore, at the UN and UNESCO, we actively support all the initiatives that are particularly relevant today: the Dialogue of Civilisations, the Dialogue of Cultures and the Dialogue of Religions. It is not by chance that they have become topical issues on the agenda because they reflect the fermentation within societies and the need to somehow search for a national consensus.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass destruction

    Apr 03, 2017 | thesaker.is

    Question : Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?

    Sergey Lavrov : We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security [Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to international information security have been adopted unanimously.

    Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.

    I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So, alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style of James Bond will respond to this.

    There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this context, serious debate lies ahead.

    We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect any results yet.

    [Apr 03, 2017] The United States started using the so called managed chaos technology long ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... The concept of managed chaos appeared long ago as a method of strengthening US influence. Its basic premise is that managed chaos projects should be launched away from the United States in regions that are crucial for global economic and financial development. The Middle East has always been in the focus of politicians and foreign policy engineers in Washington. Practice has shown that this concept is dangerous and destructive, in particular for the countries where the experiment was launched, namely Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. ..."
    "... we have proposed that the UN General Assembly formalise the universal unacceptability of coups as a means of changing government. ..."
    "... Last autumn, a resolution was adopted at the initiative of a large group of co-authors – our Cuban colleagues were among the most active advocates of this idea, alongside other countries. ..."
    "... This resolution recognised the importance of creating a more democratic and equitable world order and openly rejected the change of governments through unconstitutional coups and attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states and to impose alien ideas and values on them as unacceptable. It is also unacceptable when national jurisdictions are applied extraterritorially, when a country hunts down other countries' legal entities and nationals around the world even though they have not violated international law but are believed to have violated the national legislation of the said country. Three countries voted against this resolution and a few dozen countries – mostly Western ones – abstained. The resolution was adopted by a far larger vote than some other resolutions that our Western partners like to quote ..."
    thesaker.is

    Question: The United States started using the so-called managed chaos technology long ago. What can be used to counter such technology on the international scale? Is there a response to the concept of global stability and security management? Which countries could potentially initiate this project?

    Sergey Lavrov: The concept of managed chaos appeared long ago as a method of strengthening US influence. Its basic premise is that managed chaos projects should be launched away from the United States in regions that are crucial for global economic and financial development. The Middle East has always been in the focus of politicians and foreign policy engineers in Washington. Practice has shown that this concept is dangerous and destructive, in particular for the countries where the experiment was launched, namely Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.

    In the case of Afghanistan, the United States launched its operation there with international support following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The UN Security Council unanimously confirmed the US right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The US operation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda was supported by all countries. It's another matter that after receiving the international approval, the United States and its NATO allies, which took over in Afghanistan, started acting rather inconsistently, to put it mildly. During their operation in Afghanistan, the terrorist threat has not been rooted out, while the drug threat has increased many times over. The drug industry prospered. There is factual evidence that some of the NATO contingents in Afghanistan turned a blind eye to the illegal drug trafficking, even if they were not directly involved in these criminal schemes. Afghanistan is a separate case, although the current developments there, which are a result of the NATO operation's failure, despite the carte blanche the bloc received from the international community, can be considered an unintended cause of managed chaos. In Iraq, Syria and Libya, this chaos was created intentionally.

    I have also mentioned Yemen. The situation there can be described as a huge humanitarian catastrophe. It is not at the top of the international agenda, for some reason, although representatives of the UN Secretariat who are responsible for humanitarian affairs have described the situation in Yemen as the "largest humanitarian crisis in the world", larger than in Syria or Iraq. Responsible politicians have come to see that the managed chaos theory is destroying life in many regions. Some parties can benefit in the short term from fluctuations on the raw materials markets provoked by the revolutions orchestrated by external forces, but this theory ultimately backfires at its engineers and executors in the form of massive migration inflows, which terrorists use to enter these countries.

    We can see this in Europe. Terrorist attacks have been staged even in the United States.

    The Atlantic Ocean has not protected it from the terrorist threat. This is the boomerang effect. Serious people are coming to see this. Reliance on international law is the only weapon against this threat. The UN Charter offers the necessary tools for this. Military force can only be used by decision of the UN Security Council, or a country can resort to anticipatory self-defence in keeping with the spirit of the UN Charter when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable.

    Russia acts in keeping with these premises in its relations with other countries. China, India, Brazil and the majority of other countries share this view.

    There is one more thing connected with the issue of managed chaos and its consequences.

    The policy of countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as their regional organisations – the African Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) – is based on a formal principle on the unacceptability of the unconstitutional change of power via a coup d'état. Since this danger is not purely African or Latin American (we have seen it surface in other parts of the world), we have proposed that the UN General Assembly formalise the universal unacceptability of coups as a means of changing government.

    Last autumn, a resolution was adopted at the initiative of a large group of co-authors – our Cuban colleagues were among the most active advocates of this idea, alongside other countries.

    This resolution recognised the importance of creating a more democratic and equitable world order and openly rejected the change of governments through unconstitutional coups and attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states and to impose alien ideas and values on them as unacceptable. It is also unacceptable when national jurisdictions are applied extraterritorially, when a country hunts down other countries' legal entities and nationals around the world even though they have not violated international law but are believed to have violated the national legislation of the said country. Three countries voted against this resolution and a few dozen countries – mostly Western ones – abstained. The resolution was adopted by a far larger vote than some other resolutions that our Western partners like to quote, for example the resolution on the violation of human rights in Crimea.

    [Apr 02, 2017] How Obama White House Weaponized Media Against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius. ..."
    "... Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. ..."
    "... The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate. ..."
    "... On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one. ..."
    "... On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it? ..."
    "... This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin." ..."
    "... Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in. ..."
    "... While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it. ..."
    "... With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all. ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored op-ed by Michael Doran via The Hill,

    Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Adam Schiff have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. They should think twice. The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.

    The trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak . On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that "according to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29."

    From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius.

    Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. But it was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.

    The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate.

    On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.

    A report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it?

    This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin."

    The national media mimicked the Post's reporting. But there was a problem: the hack never happened . It was a false alarm - triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama's hype.

    On Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI published a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. "At every level this report is a failure," said cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. "It didn't do what it set out to do, and it didn't provide useful data. They're handing out bad information."

    Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.

    While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.

    With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.

    By turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. Ignatius used the leak to deepen speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: "What did Flynn say (to Kislyak)," Ignatius asked, "and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?" The mere fact that Flynn's conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. If he was innocent, why was the government monitoring him?

    It should not have been. He had the right to talk to in private - even to a Russian ambassador. Regardless of what one thinks about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security state and our domestic politics. The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. At stake is a core principle of our democracy: that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.

    [Apr 02, 2017] DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security. ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | www.dni.gov
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    January 11, 2017

    DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump


    This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.

    We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

    President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.

    James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

    [Apr 02, 2017] The myth about this great oilman Obama

    Apr 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> mulp... , April 01, 2017 at 06:45 PM
    " if Obama had not created 5 years of shelter to small oil drill baby fracking on private land with oil embargoes limiting global supply in conjunction with restrictions on oil production on Federal leases?"

    This would be an interesting myth: the myth about this great oilman Obama ...

    Do you know how much junks bonds were issued during this spectacular increase is shale oil output ?

    and it was really spectacular: from 5.7 million barrels/day in 2011 to 9.2 million barrels/day in 2014 and 9.4 million barrels/day in March 2015.

    The United States increased production by 5.1 million barrels per day (Mb/d) from 2010 to 2015. In comparison, the increase in production from Persian Gulf was less at 5.0 Mb/d. Total world production increase was 8.4 Mb/d. Which means the rest of the world oil producers declined by some ~ 1.7 Mb/d. This was despite Canadian production rising 1.0 Mb/d plus increases from Russia, and Brazil. Most oil producing countries are now in a long term decline or plateau at best. US is in decline, but that might reverse with prices hitting $70.

    But it was not just oil production. It was oil plus junk bonds production and it is unclear in what area they were the most efficient :-).

    If you add cost of bankruptcies in 2015-2017 to the cost of US shale oil it becomes so high, that it would be more cost efficient to buy it elsewhere and do not risk ecological consequences.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/half-of-us-shale-drillers-may-go-bankrupt-oppenheimers-gheit.html

    "Half of the current [US] producers have no legitimate right to be in a business where the price forecast even in a recovery is going to be between, say, $50, $60. They need [above] $70 oil to survive,"

    More than 60 North American oil and gas companies have gone belly-up since the start of last year, with liabilities totaling $22.5 billion as of April of 2016 ( http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Bankruptcies-continue-in-US-shale-oil-industry )

    And even now then prices somewhat recovered to $50 per barrel level the only possibility to survive for US shale oil producers are "evergreen" loans.

    That might change if the price hits $70 or higher. But I would keep my fingers crossed on that: something is happening in the world if oil managed to get this low and stay at this level in 2015-2017.

    See

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-18/oil-junk-bonds-cost-investors-billions

    But Obama has one thing under the belt: his administration managed to crash oil prices and this way "saved" Obama recovery, while partially wiping out the US shale.

    [Apr 02, 2017] With the emergence of globalization, the term comprador denote trading groups and classes in the developing world that benefit and prefer subordinate relationships with metropolitan capital

    Apr 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> pgl... , April 01, 2017 at 01:55 PM
    "Trump is Yeltsin American style."

    Nothing can be more wrong that this statement. This is an absurd statement to say the least.

    Yeltsin was a comprador, member of Russian "lumpen elite". Trump is more of economic nationalist.

    See

    Rise of the lumpen elite: is this really what we fought for? Published on openDemocracy

    https://opendemocracy.net/printpdf/62166

    Yeltsin sold Russian industry to foreigh interests for pennies on a dollar. Gave up natural resposes for peanuts, on essentially colonial terms. That how Us oil companies got to Sakhalin island.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-II

    The first ever Russian production sharing agreement was signed in the framework of the Sakhalin-2 project in 1994.

    In foreign policy Yeltsin behaves like a drunk puppet of Clinton. His foreign minister Kozirev ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Kozyrev ) was nicknamed by US press "Mister Yes".

    anne -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 02:14 PM
    "Trump is Yeltsin American style."

    Nothing can be more wrong that this statement. This is an absurd statement to say the least.

    Yeltsin was a comprador, member of Russian "lumpen elite".

    [ Do explain this further when possible. ]

    anne -> anne... , April 01, 2017 at 02:15 PM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprador

    A comprador is a "person who acts as an agent for foreign organizations engaged in investment, trade, or economic or political exploitation". A comprador is a native manager of European business houses in East and South East Asia, and, by extension, social groups that play broadly similar roles in other parts of the world.

    anne -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 02:20 PM
    The use of emotionally laden jargon would not seem necessary if the point is to allow understanding.

    Lumpen-this and Lumpen-that, such terms are of no interest to me.

    anne -> anne... , April 01, 2017 at 02:21 PM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenbourgeoisie

    Lumpenbourgeoisie is a term used primarily in the context of colonial and neocolonial elites in Latin America, which became heavily dependent on and supportive of the neocolonial powers.

    libezkova -> anne... , April 01, 2017 at 03:52 PM
    "Lumpenbourgeoisie" is a more correct term as for Yeltsin entourage then "lumpen elite". Sorry about that.

    But "comprador" also is a legitimate term for describing this phenomena. It originated in Marxism and means "groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate to imperial power interests"

    == quote from Wikipedia ==

    In Marxism, the term comprador bourgeoisie was later applied to similar trading-class in regions outside of East Asia.[5][6][7][8]

    With the emergence (or re-emergence) of globalization, the term comprador has reentered the lexicon to denote trading groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate but mutually advantageous relationships with metropolitan capital. The Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin has discussed the role of compradors in the contemporary global economy in his recent work.[9] In addition, the Indian economist, Ashok Mitra, has accused the owners and managers of firms attached to the Indian software industry of being compradors.[10] Growing identification of the software industry in India with comprador 'qualities' has led to the labeling of certain persons associated with the industry as 'dot.compradors'.[11]

    == end of quote ==


    But meaning all those terms is essentially the same -- part of the elite acting not in interests of the county, but some imperial foreign powers and content with neo-colonial role of their country.

    In some sense neoliberal governments also can be called "lumpen elite" as they are subservient to transnational corporations, not so much interests of their own country population.

    pgl -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 03:09 PM
    Yeltsin sold Russian industry to foreigh interests for pennies on a dollar.

    True but me thinks Trump will do the same.

    libezkova -> pgl... , April 01, 2017 at 04:40 PM
    Future is unpredictable by definition.

    But I would draw analogies between Weimar government and Yeltsin regime. In both case countries faced huge financial outflows (reparations in one case, "economic rape" in another), hyperinflation, mass impoverishment of population, disappearance of middle class, and high unemployment.

    To a certain extent that was true about Obama regime in 2008-2010.

    Yeltin Russia was really a "failed country". Government employees and government workers were not paid for many months, average longevity for males dropped below 60. And Russian neoliberals (such as Yegor Gaidar( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar an object of loathing among ordinary Russians who lost everything during the neoliberal privatization, Anatoly Chubais -- the most hated person in Russia, oligarchs such as Berezovsky, Gusinsky ) who came to power with Yeltsin tried to ally with foreign powers in order to secure what they stole from Russian people. Rephrasing Obama, only the USA stand between them and pitchforks. BTW Chubais is (or was) a member of the Advisory Council for JPMorgan.

    It rather funny and tragic that criminals that stole money from Russians and than managed to escape to the West with their money already in Western banks instantly become fighters for democracy -- I would call this "Classic Neoliberal Metamorphose" (CMM). Berezovsky is one example here. Very convenient, useful for the pressure on Russian government, and you do not return the money :-)

    A very interesting variant of the "rule of law".

    In a sense Trump is more similar to Putin than Yeltsin. Both accidentally came to power on the wave of dis-illusion of the mass of population in previous administration and dramatic loss of "good" jobs.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , April 01, 2017 at 03:53 PM
    Libezkova you should follow David Warsh who runs Economic Principals blog which Professor Thoma links from here.

    Warsh is writing a history of the US delegation, many from Harvard, who plundered Russia's attempt to build a stock exchange, etc.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Obama's Passport Breach Unanswered Questions, and an Unsolved Murder

    Notable quotes:
    "... not because I have any particular concerns" ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | www.americanthinker.com
    There is no way to tell what might have been done to Obama's passport records by those who accessed them. Key information could have been altered or destroyed. On April 8, 2008, after the breach became public, Obama confessed to having taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981. The then-candidate said: "I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college." Journalist Jake Tapper was surprised and said: "This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign."

    Did Obama confess to this trip, which he doesn't mention in either of his autobiographies, because of the passport breach? While the oft-repeated charge that Americans were forbidden to travel to Pakistan in 1981 appears to be false , questions remain about why Obama took the trip at all, and what he did there. Indian counterterrorism expert Bahukutumbi Raman asked pointed questions about this trip:

    Why did he keep mum on his visit to Pakistan till this question was raised? Has he disclosed all the details regarding his Pakistan visit? Was it as innocuous as made out by him -- to respond to the invitation of a Pakistani friend or was there something more to it? As I read about Obama's visit to Pakistan in the 1980s, I could not help thinking of dozens of things. Of the Afghan jihad against communism. Of the fascination of many Afro-Americans for the jihad. Of the visits of a stream of Afro-Americans to Pakistan to feel the greatness of the jihad. Of their fascination for Abdullah Azzam[.]

    It bears noting that John Brennan has made some incredible pro-terror remarks -- some in Arabic no less -- about the beauty of jihad.

    Raman acknowledged that these were "morbid" speculations but said they were "understandable when one has a feeling that one has not been told the whole story, but only a part of it."

    And Obama confessed to this trip two weeks after his passport was tampered with. There is a video here of Obama's response to the passport breach back on March 21, 2008. It's telling that he assures everyone that he has nothing to hide: " not because I have any particular concerns" (0:23). This is before the birth certificate controversy. Who would say that -- unless he did have particular concerns?

    Obama said at the time that attempts to "tap into people's personal records" were "a problem not just for me, but for how our government functions."

    [Apr 02, 2017] Barack Obamas theory of politics is and always has been garbage

    Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com
    ny Ryan Cooper

    The absolute nadir of Obama's presidency was the moment he chose to try to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling (which limits the amount the federal government can borrow) to try to get a "grand bargain" on taxes and social insurance. If Republicans would agree to some tax hikes, he would get Democrats to support large cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This was stone idiocy on several levels: It accepted the legitimacy of Republicans taking the debt ceiling hostage - thus threatening national default and world financial crisis - to extract unrelated policy concessions; and as policy it was actively harmful. The narrative of looming debt crisis due to excessively generous social insurance was and is despicable garbage - and austerity and cuts to social insurance were the exact opposite of what was needed in July 2011, when the unemployment rate was 9.0 percent .

    Obama was so enamored of the idea of being the president who finally cut through the partisan gridlock that he nearly undermined two of the country's most foundational programs. The only reason the grand bargain didn't pass was that the extremist faction of House Republicans refused to countenance any tax increases whatsoever .

    After that humiliating failure, Obama retreated somewhat from trying to get compromises. Locked out of traditional governing, but still needing to address emergencies like climate change, he ended up resorting to a lot of unilateral executive orders.

    But it seems this was merely a tactical retreat. In his 2015 State of the Union address , and again at the 2016 Democratic National Convention , he once more sounded the same anti-partisan notes of compromise and reasoned discussion. And as Jeff Stein reports after interviewing multiple top figures in Obama circles, the former president is preparing to redouble his anti-partisan efforts with a new foundation dedicated towards a rather content-free notion of "citizenship." This was also one major reason why Obama installed his loyal follower Tom Perez at the DNC - because he could liberate "himself from having to personally respond to Trump over the next several years" and thus stay above the partisan fray.

    Now, as Steve Randy Waldman writes , it's not wrong to believe that a nation-state needs a basic commonality of belief and fellow feeling among the citizenry to succeed. Tying the nation together with cords of mutual dependence is one underrated function of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, for instance. But when confronted with a political faction fanatically dedicated to cutting those cords, the right approach is not to keep reaching across the aisle to get tased. Instead, as FDR showed when New Deal Democrats constructed the basic structure of modern American society, one must comprehensively defeat that faction politically, over and over, until their views are exiled from the political mainstream. With agreement again defined along reasonable lines, civil political discourse will flourish once more.

    But until then, it's fight or lose.

    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Money that Poured in from Russia Economic Principals

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Bloomberg Businessweek ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.economicprincipals.com
    March 26, 2017
    Having spent the last six months preparing a history of Harvard University's mission to Moscow in the 1990s and the scandal that ensued (to appear sometime this summer), I have often been reminded of William Faulkner's apothegm : "The past is never dead. It's not even past." This is as true of the Trump-Russia story as it is of the larger and more intricate realm of US-Russia relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Holman Jenkins, Jr., the least predictable columnist at The Wall Street Journal , noted last week (subscription required) that Watergate analogies in the Trump Russia controversy are beside the point. What is wanted, he wrote, is a Pentagon Papers-style history of US policy, "an emptying out of the files" necessary to illuminate the "awkward, contradictory and humiliating straddles" of Western governments over the last twenty-five years.

    Alas, we are unlikely to get that kind of retrospective from WikiLeaks. What is required instead is a great deal of shoe-leather reporting. An especially good example was to be found ten days ago in The Rich Refugees Who Saved Trump , by Caleb Melby and Keri Geiger, with Michael Smith, Alexander Sazenov, and Polly Mosendz, writing in Bloomberg Businessweek .

    When Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza began construction two decades ago as the tallest residential building in the country (90 stories), its most expensive floors attracted wealthy people getting their money out of what had been the Soviet Union. Trump needed the big spenders. He was renegotiating $1.8 billion in junk bonds for his Atlantic City resorts, and the tower was built on a mountain of debt owed to German banks.

    The story is the most plausible account I've yet seen of what Trump's oldest son, Donald Jr., may have meant when he said, in 2008, "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." In the earlier case reported by BBw , the deluge occurred at a most propitious time, in the late 1990s, when Trump's business was stretched thin and under stress.

    Trump broke ground on the building in October 1998, across the street from the United Nations headquarters. After several years of boisterous churn and at long last some growth, the Russian economy was in crisis. The ruble had collapsed in August; the government had defaulted on its domestic debt. Savvy Russians had scrambled to get their money out of the country. From the article:

    Real Estate provides a safe haven for overseas investors. It has few reporting requirements and is a preferred way to move cash of questionable provenance. Amid the turmoil, buyers found a dearth of available projects. Trump World Tower, opened in 2001, became a prominent depository of Russian money.

    Others who bought units in the building, with its 72 constructed floors and 90 stories listed on its elevator panels, included New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter, Bill Gates, Harrison Ford, Sophia Loren, and Kellyanne Conway and her husband, according to Wikipedia. BBw reported that

    The very top floors remained unsold for years but a third of the units sold on floors 76 through 83 by 2004 involved people or limited liability corporations connected to Russia and neighboring states, a Bloomberg investigation shows. The reporting involved more than two dozen interviews and a review of hundreds of public records in New York.

    Trump scholars gradually will determine how material was the sales boost in the complicated ups-and-downs of Trump's financial position in those days. For an explication of some of the favors owed, which in one case went back to 1976, see the current article . This much is indelibly clear: the president has seen Russia as a prime source of revenue, if not investment, for twenty years. Again, BBw:

    Simultaneous with when the tower was going up, developer Gil Dezer and his father, Michael, were building a Trump-backed condo project in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla. "Russians love the Trump brand," [Dezer] says, adding that Russians and Russian Americans bought some 200 of the 2,000 units in Trump buildings he built. They flooded into Trump projects from 2001 to 2007, helping Trump weather the real estate collapse, he says.

    A similar situation, this one involving a troubled midtown Manhattan building owned by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and a billionaire Chinese would-be investor, was covered in some detail earlier this month by The New York Times and the WSJ (subscription required). The next step is to follow Bloomberg's team in tracing Trump's dealings with Russians back in time.

    My hunch is that the WSJ's Jenkins is right, that the 2016 campaign-collusion story will turn out to be a dead end. Much more interesting is the saga of the formation of Trump's views of Russia over the last twenty-five years

    [Apr 01, 2017] There some signes the quite coup happened under Obama and the remnants of democracy were lost

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    juliania, March 31, 2017 at 9:53 pm

    Thank you, thank you, Lambert, for that excellent Matt Stoller piece ( https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller ). At the risk of repeating what others I hope have already read, this stood out for me:

    As economist Simon Johnson pointed out in a 2009 essay in The Atlantic titled "The Quiet Coup," what the bailouts truly represented was the seizure of political power by a small group of American financiers. Just as in the founding era, we saw a massive foreclosure crisis and the evisceration of the main source of middle class wealth. A bailout, similar to one that created the national debt, ensured that wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a small group. The Citizens United decision and the ever-increasing importance of money in politics have strong parallels to the property disenfranchisement along class lines that occurred in the post-Revolutionary period. Just as turnout fell to record lows in much of the country in 2014, turnout collapsed after the rebellions were put down. And in another parallel, Occupy Wall Street protesters camped out across the country were evicted by armed guards-a martial response coordinated by banks, the federal government, and many Democratic mayors.

    The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy "

    The parallels he draws are irrefutable.

    [Apr 01, 2017] US neocons have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Still detente offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of Chinas orbit and accepting Us terms in Syria

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 31, 2017 3:08:38 PM | 17

    b's quote from Obama is from January 2016. I don't think Obama was EVER serious about fighting ISIS. He helped to create ISIS when he ignored their rise, calling them al Queda's "JV team". He confirmed his support for ISIS with his "leading from behind" policy.

    In January 2016, the US was starting the charade of separating moderate rebels. We know how that farce turned out.

    Even after the San Bernardino (Dec. 2015) and Orlando (Jun. 2016) terror attacks - attributed to ISIS - nothing really changed. For Obama it was business as usual.

    Trump initiated talks between US military command and Russians for the first time since 2014. Gen. Dunford met with Gen. Gerasimov in Feb. 2017. We now see Israel stepping up operations in Syria as a result of US pulling back from the failed 'Assad must go!' policy.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Has there been any real change or just a hiatus? I don't think we'll know until Trump meets with Putin.

    Many in the US (esp. neocons) will have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Whatever peace is offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of China's orbit.

    Hayder | Mar 31, 2017 1:17:42 PM | 1
    I'm sorry about this long contribution, but as I was writing this, more information and ideas came to hand.


    Iraqi situation:


    Recently, Iraqi PM Al-Abadi met with President Trump in the White House.

    As well as the usual niceties of a meeting between two heads of state in Washington, the meeting centred around three main areas where the US has objectives that need to be address by their Iraqi counterparts:​


    1) The Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU): These forces must be disbanded, and are seen as a stumbling block in the face of US objectives in Iraq and the wider region. There has been some indications that PM Al-Abadi will disband them after the elimination of Daesh/ISIS, allowing those that wish to remain to be integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus and disbanding those that do not. This is the "objective", but whether Al-Abadi can deliver is an entirely different matter. Already, Iraqi members of parliament have come out in protest at there mere possibility of the disbandment of the PMU, stating that the PM does not have the legal authority to disband them, and it needs parliamentary approval, where any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide due to the popularity the the PMU among ordinary Iraqis.


    2) Permanent american Bases in Iraq and increasing the number of troops in the country: This is a big issue for President Trump. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly stated the need to control Iraqi oil, and stated that leaving Iraq was a mistake. He even said this IN FRONT OF PM Al-Abadi several times.There is also widespread concern amongst Iraqis that the US is on its way back to Iraq, and in large numbers- some report a figure of up to fifty thousand troops, in permanent bases. There is also a very large US military base being build in Al Qayyarah area in Northern Iraq (about half way between Beiji and Mosul), that reports say will equal the size of Incirlik. This is another very "hot" topic in Iraq, and has widespread rejection by the Iraqi people. Once again, Iraqi MPs state that Al-Abadi DOES NOT have legal authority to allow permanent bases or keep foreign troops permanently in Iraq, and that such a step would need approval by parliament. Again, any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide. There is genuine fear amongst Iraqis about the situation "after" Daesh/ISIS. The concern is, that in the event the Government DOES NOT cede to the will of the US, and approve bases and troops etc.. there will be a dramatic political change, either in the form of a coup, or declaration of a state of emergency, through which special measures will take place. There is also talk of appointing a military governor for the mainly Sunni provinces of Nainawa, Salahuldeen (Saladin) and Anbar- a de facto state within a state- this could link up with Eastern Syria (see bellow).


    3) Moving Iraq away from Iran and closer to the Saudi "camp". The recent visit to Iraq by the Saudi Foreign Minister has been well covered. There was also a meeting between the Iraqi PM and the Saudi King on the 29th on March. Al-Abadi's speech at the Heads of State of the Arab League in Jordan (29th March) was notable in that it was close to the Saudi position on several topics: a) His statement did not mention Syria, b) It stated that Iraq will "expel ISIS outside Iraq" { ?into Syria as per the objectives of others wishing to topple the Syrian state}, c) Is stressed the need for a unified Arab front against threats to Iraqi sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any Arab nation {reference to alleged Iranian interference in the region}. On the face of it, it seems that Iraq is moving away from Iran and edging closer to the Saudi camp, albeit slowly, but this is purely at the level of the current Iraqi government. I think efforts to distance Iraq from Iran and closer to Saudi Arabia will ultimately fail, for two reasons:


    Firstly, The vast majority of Iraqi people view Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Monarchies very negatively. Unlike Iraqi politicians, who will certainly have some personal gains from closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Iraqi people are unwilling to just "forgive and forget" how the Saudis and others persistently conspired against the Iraqi people over the years. It was the Saudis and other Gulf States who supported Saddam Hussein and his regime, which oppressed Iraqis terribly, they supported him to the tune of over 200 billion dollars for the war against Iran and persistently opposed the political process since 2003 (and Democracy was NOT the reason!). More recently, the Saudis have been supporting Daesh/ISIS both financially and ideologically. This support has carried on unabated to this day.


    Secondly: the links between Iraq and Iran are much closer and deeper than others realise, and including at a cultural, religious and tribal level, and no government can alter that. The only exception to this would be a harsh dictatorial regime, such as that of Saddam Hussein, whereby government policy had absolutely no relation to Iraqi public opinion, and was simply a tool for carrying out the wishes of the "Dear Leader".


    Other Iraq developments:


    A) PMU still barred from entering Tel Afar. The Iraqi government has succumbed to pressure from Turkey to prevent Tal Afar from being liberated, with a threat of invasion by a Turkish force stationed at the boarder town of Silopi should the PMUs enter Tel Afar.


    B) Rumours that Daesh/ISIS evacuating injured/ getting supplies from through a corridor to the North of Mosul, via Masoud Barzani controlled territory / Turkey, and plans are to slow down the Iraqi advance long enough for the majority of Daesh/ISIS forces to evacuate into Syria. The route takes them through Tell Kayf and Batnay (see Southfront mosul situation update map 31 March https://southfront.org/military-situation-in-mosul-on-march-31-2017-iraqi-map-update/ ).

    Syria situation:


    With the ongoing advance towards Raqqa by US/SDF forces, the bid event recently was the surprise Tabqa operation. It is notable that the airborne landings in Tabqa by a small US/SDF force occurred with relatively little resistance from Daesh/ISIS, with few casualties. Some have concluded that the majority of ISIS had already withdrawn. Contrast this with the Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive carried out by the Syrian Arab Army in 2016, whereby the SAA suffered heavy casualties and resulted in Daesh/ISIS gains. There are also reports of a rapid withdraw on ISIS from East As-Suwayda to reinforce strength in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and As-Sukhnah.


    The US/SDF landings in Tabqa aimed at achieving several objectives. The most important is blocking the path of the Syrian army and allies from Reqqa.

    If/when US/SDF forces defeat Daesh/ISIS in Reqqa , they will have virtual control of the whole of Eastern Syria, save for three pockets of SAA control in Qamishli, Hasakah and Deir Ezzur, as well as some areas where Daesh/ISIS will remain.

    The Eastern part of Syria is where the baulk of the oil and gas is located as well as being the agricultural heartland of the country. The US secretary of State, Tillerson stated that the the US longer sees toppling President Assad as a primary objective. This may be the case (for now), but on the ground, events are such that Syria is being divided into regions of influence whereby the Damascus Government no longer has authority over large swathes of it. We are witnessing a de facto federalisation of Syria, with the Eastern part no longer under the rule of Damascus, and in effect a US protectorate, with troops on the ground. The creation of this "region" also serves another critical US objective in the region - it acts as a "wall" separating Iran & "Shia" Iraq from the Government of Syria and Lebanon. There are whispers that parts of Western Iraq will be added to this new entity in a "redrawing" of the political maps in the region. As stated in a previous post of mine, I believe that Daesh/ISIS will concentrate its forces in Deir Ezzor after its defeat in Raqqa, for a final "showdown" with other forces. It will likely face both US/SDF and Syrian/Russian forces there, but time will tell.


    Turkey announced the Euphrates Shield has concluded. Turkey has managed to split the two areas of Kurdish influence in Syria, but I believe the operation was concluded as there was no more room for Turkey to move, rather than by choice. Erdogan has finally got a foothold in Norther Syria. Could this area now be used to house refugees as per "safe zones" advocated by Turkey, Saudi and now the new US administration?

    Arab Summit:

    Some are sating that the recent summit of the Arabs Heads of State held in Jordan on March 29th marked the unofficial start of the "Arab NATO" to face Iran. There was the usual anti-Iran rhetoric from the "usual suspects" but Iraq was usually cold towards Iran. The question of Palestine was high on the agenda at the summit, but it is thought that this is merely being used as a tool to provide "political cover" for the upcoming Sunni NATO, with an expected summit to be held sometime down the line in Washington that will bring together these Arab leaders together with their Israeli counterparts in a public display of a new type alliance between Arabs and Israelis to face the "Iranian threat".


    War in Yemen:

    There are signs that the US is about to enter the war in Yemen, against the government in Sana'a (Houthi-Saleh alliance). This is seen as a war against Iran in Yemen. There are currently three US destroyers with support vessels in the Red Sea. The is a media storm from the Saudi side regarding the port of Hodeida, and that it is used to smuggle weapons into Yemen, stressing the importance of "taking it out". The next large operation could well be the battle for the West coast of Yemen (on the Red Sea). The Sana'a forces have stated that they will NOT tolerate an attack on Hodeida, and any such action will mean a major escalation on their part. At present, the Sana'a forces have refrained from going deep into Saudi territory- but this could change and their forces may receive the political green light to proceed if Hodeida is attacked.


    End in sight in Syria .....?


    Things seem to be clearing up in Syria.. Daesh/ISIS is on the ropes, US/SDF making steady progress in the East, and the Syrian army, backed by the Russians is in control of most of the major population areas, and the fact that the US publicly states that removal of Assad is no longer a priority have lead some to argued that it is the beginning of the end.. that the players are making their final touches before a political settlement is reached.. they argue that at the start, the US and its allies wanted regime change by supporting the rebels, and aimed at taking the whole of Syria- this has failed. Now, the US and its allies are involved directly and will settle for a different model, whereby there are regions of influence, a division between the US and Russian Axis. I disagree with this. I think it is still too early, and the US, Turkey, Saudi and other will still relish the overthrow of the Syrian government- and as things stand, they cant do it, but are still open to seizing any opportunity that may present itself in the future to achieve this. That is the only explanation for the lack of full co-ordination between the US and Russia to bring a devastating defeat to Daesh/ISIS, Al-Nusra and groups allied to them. If the US and its allies were serious in accepting what gains they have made, then they would start the full co-ordination of efforts to defeat the extremists with a view of working out a final political settlement. We have to remember that Daesh/ISIS and other groups are only a tool, a means to an end. they are weapons on mass destruction- some may have outlived their usefulness and will need to be exterminated, others still have a role to play.


    Its not over yet,. it is not clear what the final outcome for both Iraq and Syria will be after Daesh/ISIS. As regards Syria, I think there is a false sense of security, and the danger to the Syrian government will stem from the South- contrary to expectations.

    Hayder, the Iraqi abroad

    WorldBLee | Mar 31, 2017 3:12:54 PM | 18
    I used to use the term "Obusha" for the hybrid nature of the last two administrations where the Coke/Pepsi branding masked the fact that the core policies were the same. Perhaps "Trama" is the term for the current state where the Washington-Wall Street consensus types scream about how Trump is an abomination while in reality business as usual goes in most areas. Certainly Trama describes the impact on the rest of the world, particularly in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 31, 2017 3:14:17 PM | 19
    @1 Hayder

    Excellent analysis. I wonder what the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah reaction will be. Part of Trump's goal, I suspect, is moving Russia away from Iran. There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are.

    james | Mar 31, 2017 3:33:23 PM | 20
    b - thank you... the only dupes who are going to swallow the change in the words, are the same dupes who believed all the previous lies... meanwhile, until an actual change happens, it will be the same biz as usual from the same group of liars... they must think folks are complete idiots to believe any of their bs!! change my ass... hopey changey, lol...

    dh | Mar 31, 2017 1:45:47 PM | 6
    Good point b about this being Obama policy but

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/31/team-trump-doubles-down-on-obamas-horrendous-betrayal-of-syria

    likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 2:00:02 PM | 8
    yes b, Haley also said "Assad regime, Iran and Russia committed war crimes"

    No, never mind "war crimes" Assad may stay because we failed the regime change thingy after Mr. Putin entered in support of Syria..Bad Putin who hijacked our elections they are no match for us. So, our new focus is North Korea, third world dictator Kim Jung-Un, piece of cake we can readily beat just like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kim Jung's half brother was offed - we will continue to send a message. This time around we really do intend to teach NK people a lesson in democracy and vassalship. See..the USA Sec. of War

    In London, Mad-Dog Mattis: "North Korea 'Has Got to Be Stopped"

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/defense-sec-james-mattis-north-korea-has-got-be-stopped-n740966

    Mad-Dog is an apt descriptor MAD --setting up the final event for total collapse.
    I gotta go buy some supplies: plastic sheeting, duct tape, water and food. Can't afford a luxury underground bunker.

    likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 3:02:23 PM | 14
    hopehely @ 10

    Guess, I should have included the /S tag


    Dh @ 12

    John McCain loves his friends, ISIS. Here he is outing himself on Hannity Show saying:
    "ISIS! not true" "I know these people intimately, I know these people I am in contact with them all the time."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtS3c5olMY

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    You think?
    All doubts of McCain ISIS connection now debunked.

    Peter AU | Mar 31, 2017 4:19:29 PM | 22
    Temporarily Sane 19 "There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are."

    There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.
    US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

    Louis Proyect | Mar 31, 2017 5:16:50 PM | 23
    Okay, it is now six years and counting. How many years will it take for you to figure out that the USA prefers Assad to the religiously conservative rural poor? Maybe both Obama and Trump took the advice of the RAND corporation:: "Regime collapse, while not considered a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests"

    Yonatan | Mar 31, 2017 5:23:00 PM | 24
    Temporarily Sane @19

    Russia's primary goal in Syria is to destroy the Islamic terrorists so they can't be sent on to Russia. They have already taken out around 4500 terrorists whose passports show they were from RF states. The Russia media is littered with details of small scale takfiri terrorist acts around the RF southern borders - the biggest most recent was 6 or so taken out on the border to Chechnya.

    Secondary goals include the support for primacy of international law relating to national integrity, support for an ally, testing military systems in real conditions and increasing the strength of the multipolar opposition to Anglo-Zionist hegemony.

    Harry | Mar 31, 2017 5:38:31 PM | 25
    @ Peter AU | 22

    There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.

    If Kurds get de-facto independence within Syria (according to their manifesto) a la Barzanistan, resolution of "territorial integrity" technically remains intact. Russia could make such concessions (even blasted Assad for desiring to return all of Syria's territory) if only US would agree to barter, so far they didnt (or maybe Trump/Putin already did, who knows). While for Syria/Iran its as bad as it gets.

    US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

    US wont be the one occupying, Kurds will (US will just rule them). Do you think Syria will start a war with Kurds (especially under US protection)? Of course not. Kurds expanded their territory 10x (now finishing off ethnic cleansing that ISIS started), occupied as many oilfields as they could.

    Kurds themselves are divided, but US will make sure their puppets have the power, while pro-Syrian Kurds will be marginalized or simply killed. The idea that Kurds will come to their senses is slim and most likely wont happen, just look at Barzanistan. Independence US dangling in front of them is powerful motivator, not to speak of how much influence and money US, Israel, monarchies, etc. have.

    As for Russia, both short and long term its looking after its own interests, which may or may not be whats the best for Syria. Hence the clashes.

    telescope | Mar 31, 2017 10:31:53 PM | 30
    The more US soldiers are stuck in Islamic badlands (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq) - without any chances of even remotely favorable outcome - the better it's for America's foes. The US will keep bleeding financially, emotionally, spiritually and literally, until its military machine simply unravels and disappears into a memory hole. The Russians and the Chinese must be watching US moves with utter amazement. America's inability to perform even the simplest geopolitical calculations may very well be unprecedented in world's history.

    Alaric | Mar 31, 2017 10:36:32 PM | 31
    While i agree that the goal remains one of dividing Syria, I doubt it will work out as planned by the US/Saudis/Israelis etc. Raqqa is not Kurd territory and I'm skeptical that the various arab tribes there are going to accept governance by a Kurd/US alliance. I also wonder why Kurds are liberating Raqqa. The main advantage to them beyond killing ISIS is really leverage in negotiations with Assad. Do you want Raqqa back? Well here is what we want. I have a hard time believing the Kurds really expect to occupy Arab territories under the nose of Assad, Russia and Turkey for any extended period of time?

    Net: capturing Raqqa gives the kurds bargaining power against the Asaad government towards Kurd autonomy.

    [Mar 31, 2017] The Coup Against Trump and Why Russia Must Be Destroyed by Henry Romero

    Notable quotes:
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    The Coup Against Trump and Why Russia 'Must Be Destroyed' © REUTERS/ Opinion 17:04 16.01.2017 (updated 13:51 22.01.2017) Get short URL John Wight 95 36555 208 27 Delenda est Cathargo ("Carthage must be destroyed") are words that come down to us from ancient history. It is said they were spoken by the famed Roman statesman and orator Cato the Elder at the end of his speeches. They remain relevant today in the case of Trump, Russia and a Washington establishment that is intent on destroying both. The Rome of our time is Washington, Russia is Carthage, and today's Cato the Elder is none other than US Senator John McCain, whose quest for conflict with Russia is unbounded. © AP Photo/

    Indeed for Mr. McCain the belief that Russia must be destroyed has been elevated to the status of a self evident and received truth.

    Origins of the 'Dodgy Dossier'

    It was McCain who passed the "dodgy dossier" on Trump to the FBI, after receiving it from former UK ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood. Contained within the dossier is information purporting to reveal how Trump has been compromised by Russian intelligence over various sexual encounters with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. Compounding the scandal, adding to the lurid nature of it, are reports of the existence of a second Russian dossier on the President-elect.

    The dossier's originator has been revealed as former British MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who now runs a private intelligence company and has, according to reports, gone into hiding in the UK, supposedly fearing assassination by Russian agents.

    The fact that Mr. Steele hasn't set foot in Russia for a number of years and reportedly, on behalf of Trump's enemies within the Republican Party establishment, paid for the information contained in the 35-page dossier, recently released with the caveat that its contents cannot be verified, should have been more than enough to have it instantly dismissed as, well, fake news?

    In an article that appeared on the UK's Independent newspaper website - titled "The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious weapons of mass destruction" - Patrick Cockburn writes, "I read the text of the dossier on Donald Trump's alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief." Later in the same article he observes, "In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document."

    More significant than the fact this dossier was not immediately dismissed is the timing of its emergence and subsequent publication by the US news site, BuzzFeed. It comes on the very cusp of President-elect Donald Trump's official inauguration as the 45 th President of the United States on January 20th, and the very point at which his cabinet appointees were being grilled over their views of Russia, the threat Russia allegedly poses to the US and the West, during their official Senate confirmation hearings.

    Political Coup Underway Against Trump

    By now most people are aware, or at least should be, of Washington's long and ignoble history when it comes to fomenting, planning, supporting, and funding political and military coups around the world - in Central and Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere the CIA and other US agencies have brought down countless leaders and governments that have refused to toe the line when it comes to serving US interests.

    In unprecedented fashion, what we have in this instance are those same deep state actors, working in conjunction with the US liberal establishment, currently engaged in a coup designed to destroy the Trump presidency - if not before it begins then certainly soon after, with the prospect of impeachment proceedings against him already being mooted in Washington circles.

    During his recent press conference , Trump felt minded to declaim against Washington's bloated intelligence community, accusing it of releasing the dossier to the media, an allegation US intelligence chiefs have denied. The result is an unprecedented open war between the country's next president and his soon-to-be intelligence services that has pitched the country into a political crisis that grows deeper by the day.

    The Power of the Military Industrial Complex

    On the question of why the US deep state and Washington's liberal establishment is so intent on maintaining Russia in the role of deadly enemy, the answer is very simple - money.

    Huge and powerful economic and ideological interests are tied up in the new Сold War of the past few years.

    We're talking the country's previously mentioned gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets, continuing US support and financing of NATO, along with reason for the continued existence and funding of the vast network of political think tanks in Washington and throughout the West, all of which are committed to sustaining a status quo of US hegemony and unipolarity.

    Russia's emergence as a strategic counterweight to the West in recent years has and continues to challenge this hitherto uncontested hegemony, providing lucrative opportunities for organizations, groups, and individuals with a vested interest in the resulting new Cold War. For those of a skeptical persuasion in this regard, I refer you to the chilling warning issued by former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower prior to leaving office in 1960 to make way for his replacement, John F. Kennedy.

    In his televised farewell address to the American people in 1961, Eisenhower said, "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

    He continued:

    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

    Finally, Eisenhower warned the American people how, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

    Though neoconservatives may no longer be in the driving seat in Washington, neoconservative ideas undoubtedly are. And prime among them is the idea that not only must Russia be destroyed but also anyone who would dare stand in the way of this narrative, up to and including President-elect Donald J. Trump.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Mar 30, 2017] You would think that the Trump family would have some awareness of the persecution that German-Americans were subjected to during WWI

    Mar 22, 2017 |

    Economist's View ''Why I Take Attacks on Muslims and Hispanics Very Personally''

    My grandmother spoke perfect, accent free English. She told me, in her late 60's, of her still vivid memories of being taunted for lack of English, and shared her recollections of all the anti-Semitic epithets she heard growing up in poverty in Manhattan. She was apparently a terrific student. But in her senior year of high school, she was told by her principal that she was too poor to go to college and that her responsibility was to get a job and support her family. These barriers did not stop her from having a rich and fascinating life, including taking night courses from Will Durant at the New School for Social Research (as it was then called) and working as a close secretary to Margaret Sanger, so she was present at the beginning of Planned Parenthood.

    And her grandchildren (my sister and me) have lived extraordinarily privileged lives and my father grew up in middle class comfort.

    yuan -> Peter K.... March 19, 2017 at 06:45 PM

    what linkage?

    the usa had been a corporate fascist kleptocracy for generations. the usa has also been a fundamentally racist nation since its founding.

    please stop apologizing for the deplorables (and neo-fascists) who make up the core of trump's base.

    Gibbon1 -> Peter K.... March 19, 2017 at 05:13 PM

    Neoliberals continue attack who they see as their enemies, the civil left. All the while the barbarians mass at the gates. I don't quite know what to make of the rage the neoliberals have towards progressives. I think it's because they think if the progressives weren't stabbing them in that back they could fend off the fascists.

    Progressives know better though. If the neoliberals continue as usual we can't help, fascism will win out.

    JohnH said... March 19, 2017 at 04:07 PM

    You would think that the Trump family would have some awareness of the persecution that German-Americans were subjected to during WWI. His parents and grandparents certainly would have know about it.

    anne -> JohnH... March 19, 2017 at 05:06 PM

    You would think that the Trump family would have some awareness of the persecution that German-Americans were subjected to during WWI....

    [ Interesting, I however have no idea of the family background of the president and wonder whether much was made of the persecution in American history classes, say, in the 1950s or 1960s. ]

    [Mar 28, 2017] Trump Asks Why Intelligence Committee Isn t Probing The Clintons

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
    "... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
    "... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
    "... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
    "... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
    "... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
    "... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
    "... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
    "... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
    Mar 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught by Democrats ever since his disclosure last week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night called for Nunes to recuse himself , moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence Committee is not investigating the Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing anti-Russian witch hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."

    "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.

    Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech....

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

    ...money to Bill, the Hillary Russian "reset," praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA --

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

    Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed.

    Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's probe into Russia's interference in the United States presidential election. Nunes on Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.

    The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation.

    ... ... ...

    GUS100CORRINA -> LetThemEatRand , Mar 27, 2017 10:59 PM

    This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted?

    As someone recently said, President TRUMP needs to take the word GOOD out of his vocabulary when referencing people. GOOD is very clear about His perspective on humanity. None are GOOD, no NOT one!

    I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar.

    CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment.

    azusgm -> GUS100CORRINA , Mar 27, 2017 11:02 PM

    Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them.

    The Joker , Mar 27, 2017 10:24 PM

    Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles.

    Beam Me Up Scotty -> LN , Mar 27, 2017 11:01 PM

    Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!!

    MsCreant , Mar 27, 2017 10:28 PM

    I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...

    I am worried.

    Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for it.

    PoasterToaster , Mar 27, 2017 10:28 PM

    The Democratic Party is the party of White Slavery.

    Ms No , Mar 27, 2017 10:31 PM

    This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the Clintons alone because they were good people and have been through enough. Our election system needs to be investigated before the next election also. Obviously we need hearings on the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will oversee the hearings? What a joke.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Ms No , Mar 27, 2017 10:46 PM

    Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I thought they were good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?

    Trump knows they're not good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.

    Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set up a secret server with classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.

    Animal Mother -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. , Mar 27, 2017 10:49 PM

    Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking into the Bubba Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet, "Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now I see how she fooled all her voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and Soetoro too.

    biker , Mar 27, 2017 10:39 PM

    Maxine Waters talks about Obama OFA shared-access amazon cloud secret database on USA citizens/agencies (shadow government) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d69X20HhEQg

    Akzed , Mar 27, 2017 10:41 PM

    "Trump Asks Why Intelligence Committee Isn't Probing The Clintons"

    Nunes is head of the committee. Why didn't Trump think to ask him when he had him over?!

    BitchesBetterRe... , Mar 27, 2017 10:44 PM

    Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary........

    Hey Trump - who's in the White house now? YOU !!!! So stop whining, get your team together & Go after them instead of tweeting about it!!!!

    WTF Donald.....

    Cabreado -> BitchesBetterRecognize , Mar 27, 2017 11:02 PM

    The government wasn't designed to work that way. It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to fix-it-all-up. Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in part because you give a pass to corrupt points of control.

    But don't feel bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Russia Is Pissed Threatens To Spill Obama Admin Secrets If US Intel Does not Stop Leaking

    Another fake news. this time from Zero Hedge...
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Russia Is Pissed: Threatens To Spill Obama Admin Secrets If US Intel Doesn't Stop Leaking logical-different , Mar 28, 2017 5:56 PM

    Here's what you have to do Russia

    Tell the American government that they'll have to apply for a VISA before you'll them come into your country. Personally, I don't know why you'd want the bastards to come for a visit. If you think your confused now wait until the inmates from the USA finish with their visit.

    Herdee , Mar 28, 2017 4:36 PM

    Like how the CIA trained these F'n morons?

    https://www.infowars.com/german-mp-erdogan-a-terrorism-godfather/

    NobodyNowhere , Mar 28, 2017 3:59 PM

    Obama was never a world-class leader - not even close. An arguably good speaker but not on topics of state, mostly on ethnic divide, cummunal politics - things that touch heart strings in disadvantaged sections of society (minorities, unemployed whites, etc).

    As a politician he was pedantic (community level); as a statesman, zero.

    Onan_the_Barbarian -> NobodyNowhere , Mar 28, 2017 4:55 PM

    Google for "Obama without teleprompter". Not impressive.

    nobodysfool , Mar 28, 2017 1:44 PM

    It's all about Leverage...

    Don Corleone : Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day - accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

    DirtySanchez , Mar 28, 2017 10:44 AM

    Russia and others may be of help.

    The entire world needs verifiable proof of the US war criminal behavior for the past 20+ years.

    Prison sentences are not enough.

    Former US Presidents need to face their accusers for the raping, pillaging, destruction, and murder of several soverign nations.

    God help them.

    dvfco -> DirtySanchez , Mar 28, 2017 2:21 PM

    It's time they nailed everyone in the Obama Administration to the wall, then follow up with every Republican in a former Bush Administration who is a NeverTrump douche and handcuff them to one from Obama's group.

    The only reason there are Republican - Never Trumpers is that they're terrified all their sins will surface.

    Once Trump starts reaming Obama and Clinton, they'll turn on Bush, etc.

    Gonna get fugly!

    LawsofPhysics , Mar 28, 2017 10:32 AM

    Ultimately there is no honor among theives...

    esum , Mar 28, 2017 10:13 AM

    Someone should shit or get off the pot with this Russian stuff... The REAL STORY IS SPYING ON US CITIZENS AND CONGRESS AND OBAMA'S USE OF CLASSIFIED INTEL AND COMEY BRENNAN CLAPPER CRIMES..... Lets get to it

    MrBoompi , Mar 28, 2017 9:00 AM

    There is nothing Russia could divulge that would come as a surprise to most of us here. At this point it would just be a confirmation of the highly corrupt and immoral behavior we've seen this government engage in for decades now. Besides, if we couldn't throw Bush and Cheney in the slammer after what they did, what hope would we have to hold Obama and Clinton accountable? Until further notice, this class of folks is above the law.

    OCnStiggs , Mar 28, 2017 8:39 AM

    The Progressive Liberal Democrats who have been staunch allies with the Russians for nearly 50 years have now turned on them to hide their own failure in running Hillary. Big mistake Mr. Schumer.

    The Russians are looking out for Russia. They will uncork a plethora of very bad news for you, including all the private dealings Progressives have had with them ('ala Ted Kennedy asking Andropov to help screw Reagan during his last election) and the timing couldn't be better for the mid-term elections.

    The Progressives are no friend of America and as the word gets out to mainstream America, the result will be devastating to the Democratic Party. Good. About time.

    MORE INVESTIGATIONS OF DEMOCRATS!!!! FRY HILLARY!!!

    Reaper , Mar 28, 2017 8:07 AM

    Did Putin foolishly expect swine to be honorable?

    d edwards -> Reaper , Mar 28, 2017 8:41 AM

    I bet they do have Hillary's 30k missing emails.

    goober -> d edwards , Mar 28, 2017 1:17 PM

    Just like NSA always has and has never released any of it, why is that ? Do we actually have a legitimate government or simply a giant criminal enterprise control mechanism ? Here are the answers --

    http://www.downtoearththinking.com/our-government-created-google-and-fac...

    http://www.downtoearththinking.com/the-war-against-donald-trump-.html

    The Russians have their own shit to keep secret and when that is less important and damaging then they will release the flood gates of hell on BHO and crew as well as Hillary and the Bushites. Not until, but I suspect that time is approaching or very near. The tangled web of sociopaths and psychopaths that control us, Hey ?

    TheEndIsNear -> PleasedToMeatYou , Mar 28, 2017 8:07 PM

    Most of the American population are so ignorant of the physical laws of nature that they prefer to believe what the government tells them to believe instead of straining their brains to exercise a little common sense. I think the disappearing 757 airliners at the Pentagon and Shanksville are the most blatant of the government lies since they require no knowledge of high-rise building construction. How people can ignore this kind of thing would be a mystery except that almost everyone gets their news from the TeeVee.

    IranContra , Mar 28, 2017 7:08 AM

    Fortunately, liberal thugs have not succeeded in derailing Trump-Putin cooperation, even in the most difficult areas: There is complete Russian-American military coordination in Iraq and Syria, even where Turkey and Iran disagree. Russia is allowing the US to arm the Kurds against ISIS in Syria, and Russia has asked Iran to withdraw its troops and militias from Iraq and Syria, exactly as Trump wants.

    Not Too Important -> PleasedToMeatYou , Mar 28, 2017 1:35 PM

    Russia can pull out of SWIFT any time they want. Europe depends on their gas. Russia can demand payment in rubles, too, or gold.

    Europe's nuclear energy has already gone off a cliff, due to all the bad reactor parts from the French. That makes Russian energy much more valueable, and they don't have enough LNG receiving facilities to buy elsewhere in any significant amounts.

    The only option now for the NWO is a quiet retirement, or mass global nuclear suicide. Any guesses?

    nmewn , Mar 28, 2017 6:45 AM

    "The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years . But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date. We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation, because they didn't know who to believe – the official agencies or the many leaks."

    And as of this moment, the second quietest person in the room just happens to be...John Kerry.

    Anybody seen ole horse face around lately? ;-)

    fleur de lis -> NO QANA , Mar 28, 2017 10:15 AM

    Russia must have a lot of info that they swept up over the years thanks to DC morons.

    They relseased the recording of Icky Vicky Neudelmann because she instigated a war on their border.

    But they must have picked up much more than that, thanks to her obnoxious ego.

    Bastiat -> fleur de lis , Mar 28, 2017 3:20 PM

    Remember when they released the crystal clear recording of Vicky Nuland organizing the Ukraine government? They must have been shocked at the utter indifference of supporters of the Obama regime.

    [Mar 26, 2017] They are an American Taliban: I have never read such a vitriolic comments section. Lots of Americans a seething mad.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
    "... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
    "... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
    "... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
    "... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
    "... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason , March 25, 2017 at 03:01 PM
    I just read this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/25/why-republicans-were-in-such-a-hurry-on-health-care/?utm_term=.590e103e2761

    I have never read such a vitriolic comments section. Lots of Americans a seething mad.

    reason -> reason... , March 25, 2017 at 03:03 PM
    By mad - I mean angry. And at the Republican party more than Trump.
    libezkova -> reason... , March 25, 2017 at 05:10 PM
    I like the following comment:

    Farang Chiang Mai, 7:39 PM EDT

    The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple.

    I would love to see this lying, cheating, selfish, crazy devil (yeah, I know I sound a bit OTT but the description is fact based) of a president and his enablers challenged on their Christian values.

    They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way.

    libezkova -> libezkova... , March 25, 2017 at 05:31 PM
    An interesting question arise:

    Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become "leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?

    Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects.

    ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM

    I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.

    US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.

    The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights.

    The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media.....

    [Mar 26, 2017] The story of working class and lower middle class turning to the far right for help after financial oligarchy provoke a nationwide crisis and destroy their way of life and standards of living is not new

    Mar 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova , March 26, 2017 at 04:03 PM
    Trump victory was almost 30 years in the making, and I think all presidents starting from Carter contributed to it.

    Even if Hillary became president this time, that would be just one term postponement on the inevitable outcome of neoliberal domination for the last 30 years.

    I think anybody with dictatorial inclinations and promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington, DC now has serious changes on victory in the US Presidential elections. So after Trump I, we might see Trump II.

    So it people find that Trump betrays his election promised they will turn to democratic Party. They will turn father right, to some Trump II.

    Due to economic instability and loss of jobs, people are ready to trade (fake) two party "democracy" (which ensures the rule of financial oligarchy by forcing to select between two equally unpalatable candidates) that we have for economic security, even if the latter means the slide to the dictatorship.

    That's very sad, but I think this is a valid observation. What we experience is a new variation of the theme first played in 1930th, after the crash of 1928.

    The story of working class and lower middle class turning to the far right for help after financial oligarchy provoke a nationwide crisis and destroy their "way of life" and standards of living is not new. In 1930th the US ruling class proved to be ready to accept the New Deal as the alternative. In Germany it was not.

    Please read

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

    to understand that.

    Now the neoliberal oligarchy wants to go off the cliff with all of us, as long as they can cling to their power.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Theyre Like The Praetorian Guard - Whistleblower Confirms NSA Targeted Congress, The Supreme Court, Trump Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
    "... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
    "... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
    "... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
    "... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
    "... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
    "... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,

    NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House."

    Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.

    "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.

    "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it."

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkChOSdOgcc

    "Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House," Binney said.

    "And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens," he said.

    "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.

    Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult.

    "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.

    "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."

    Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..."

    Who's going to stop them?

    toady -> Bank_sters Mar 25, 2017 9:22 PM
    I'm continually amazed that anyone thinks they are not being "wiretapped".

    One more time;

    Everyone, from the queen to the homeless guy on the corner, is being tracked, recorded, and data mined to the hilt.

    • Trump was survieled? No shit!
    • Obama was survieled? No shit!
    • Merkel was survieled? No shit!

    I hope people start to REALLY understand this....

    NAV GUS100CORRINA Mar 25, 2017 7:19 PM

    Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course is Stalinism-blame Hitler.

    So, is it fascism?

    Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest people at the NSA.

    Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/innocence-worldview-retired/#sthash.XjFDU6km.dpuf

    Rubicon727 -> GUS100CORRINA •Mar 25, 2017 7:38 PM

    The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency devaluation." Read some history books.

    Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth, eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.

    We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s reserved for the 1%.

    Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics •Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM

    A video worth revisiting......

    Reuters ..........

    ... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is rigged..,

    telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN12I27L

    HRClinton -> JLee2027 •Mar 25, 2017 8:15 PM

    Who does the NSA work for on the Org Chart?

    That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.

    It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do the real work and know the real secrets.

    It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.

    TheReplacement -> HRClinton •Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM

    In an honest world, sure.

    In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the watchers. They can blackmail anyone.

    'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'

    CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.

    [Mar 25, 2017] What is Economism and why it is so damaging

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission. ..."
    "... Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda. ..."
    "... When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. ..."
    "... For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for. ..."
    "... But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework. ..."
    "... An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme. ..."
    "... Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes. ..."
    "... It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists. ..."
    "... And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasé and misleading popularizers. ..."
    Jan 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : January 20, 2017 at 04:35 AM

    Noah Smith: The Ways That Pop Economics Hurt America - Noah Smith

    "So I wonder if economism was really as unrealistic and useless as Kwak seems to imply. Did countries that resisted economism -- Japan, for example, or France [Germany?] -- do better for their poor and middle classes than the U.S.? Wages have stagnated in those countries, and inequality has increased, even as those countries remain poorer than the U.S. Did the U.S.'s problems really all come from economism, or did forces such as globalization and technological change play a part? Cross-country comparisons suggest that the deregulation and tax cuts of the 1980s and 1990s, although ultimately excessive, probably increased economic output somewhat."

    Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission.

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , -1
    Thank you --

    Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda.

    I think it is proper to view Economism as a flavor of Lysenkoism. As such it is not very effective in acquiring the dominant position and suppressing of dissent, but it also can be very damaging.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-19/the-ways-that-pop-economics-hurt-america

    == quote ==

    ...When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. For far too many years, free-marketers have gotten away with winning debates by just sitting back and saying "Oh yeah? Show me the market failure!" That deck-stacking has long forced public intellectuals on the left have to work twice as hard as those safely ensconced in think tanks on the free-market right, and given the latter a louder voice in public life than their ideas warrant.

    It's also true that simple theories, especially those we learn in our formative years, can maintain an almost unshakeable grip on our thinking.

    For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for.

    But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework.

    An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme.

    Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes.

    It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists.

    And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasé and misleading popularizers.

    ... ... ...

    Russia and China have given up communism not because they stopped having working classes, but because it became obvious that their communist systems were keeping them in poverty. And Americans are now starting to question economism because of declining median income, spiraling inequality and a huge financial and economic crisis.

    [Mar 24, 2017] Democrats Trade Places on War and McCarthyism – Consortiumnews

    Notable quotes:
    "... During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda." ..."
    "... After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. ..."
    "... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Mar 24, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans, writes Robert Parry.

    Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling, national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

    This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.

    Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion," a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version of Joe McCarthy.

    Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who – as The New York Times reported – were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans, whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

    In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."

    As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.

    Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980.

    For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred – and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations were framed.

    Going Whole-Hog

    By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have provided some help or advice to Trump.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo] Given the paucity of evidence – both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that process – it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically and possibly remove him from office.

    But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

    One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).

    The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine. The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."

    Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force "regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

    In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.

    Questioning War

    Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations (although they were far from pacifists).

    Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations for other wars.

    Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.

    The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s – around Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" – from George McGovern to Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.

    But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President rebuffed less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

    Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.

    During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."

    After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.

    The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.

    By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders – urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no fly zones" – but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."

    Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged "softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."

    Being Joe McCarthy

    National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia – no matter how tenuous or disconnected from Trump's election – is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.

    But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.

    Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

    More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.

    While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:

    • Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?
    • How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of "super-delegates" to make many rank-and-file voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment's choice?
    • What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump's populism?
    • Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?

    Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community – with its fearsome surveillance powers – can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.

    Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.

    At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon " and " Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party .]

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Mar 24, 2017] Neoliberal policies aided the far right.

    Notable quotes:
    "... During the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, elite policymakers in Western Europe came to the conclusion that it was no longer possible for the welfare state to operate as it had since 1945. Their project thereafter has been twofold: to convince the public that their diagnosis is right, and to enact (what they consider) necessary neoliberal reforms by any means necessary. ..."
    "... The first task proved difficult with certain reforms (notably liberalizing labor markets) and easier with others (implementing a fixed exchange rate regime, effectively blocking full employment macroeconomic policy, though not explicitly described as such by its proponents). ..."
    "... Gradually, elites shifted their emphasis toward the second strategy. Their primary means of forcing through reform has been the non-democratic policymaking machinery that the European Union put in place in the 1980s and '90s to straitjacket national political actors. (A policymaking machinery that national actors have largely gone along with, since they too are convinced that their domestic policies need a heavy dose of neoliberal reform.) ..."
    "... The European far right has existed continuously since World War II, with outbreaks in different countries at different times, each of which is an interesting political phenomenon in its own right. ..."
    "... Le Pen's first appearance on the French political scene: the 1956 general election, when Le Pen was elected as part of a wave of followers of the lower-middle-class, xenophobic, populist tax-revolter Pierre Poujade. ..."
    "... The center-left establishment is disdained because it tried to bypass national politics and become the high priest-caste of a regressive European order. ..."
    "... The reason this political moment feels different - the threat of the far right more threatening, the wan protection offered by the political establishment least reassuring - has nothing to do with the far right itself, nor with the failure of traditional social-democratic policies. Indeed, since Beauchamp assumes that social democracy has been static since 1945, it cannot possibly have caused a political phenomenon that only thrust itself upon us in the last few years. ..."
    "... The difference - the critical break - lies in the behavior of the establishment near-right in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It perceived, far sooner than the hapless social democrats of the European mainstream, that the consensus economic policies of the post-1970s era were doomed in the public mind. Having no other acceptable economic program to fall back on, they moved to assimilate xenophobia and use it as both an offensive and defensive weapon for the coming populist onslaught. That is what Cameron did when he acceded to a Brexit referendum, and that is what the Republican Party did when it nominated Donald Trump for the presidency. ..."
    "... In short, Trump cannot simply have been caused by white supremacy, because we have always had white supremacy. What we haven't always had is the breakdown of elite consensus and the center-left's veneration of procedural norms and reliance on "non-partisan" third-party validators to fight what is in fact an ideological power struggle. ..."
    Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : March 17, 2017 at 01:07 PM
    Again it's interesting that Sanjait and PGL usually agree with Krugman, Bible and verse but they didn't agree with his most recent blog post which was about populism and leftwing/Sanders-type economic policy.

    Titled "Populism and the Politics of Health"

    And yet they didn't want to talk about! Very odd...

    Here's a good rejoiner to Vox and Krugman about a subject Sanjait and PGL don't want to talk about:

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/beauchamp-vox-le-pen-corbyn-trump-populism/

    No Easy Answers, Just Bad History

    A Vox writer sets out to prove social-democratic policies aided the far right. He fails.

    by Marshall Steinbaum

    Several weeks before Hillary Clinton's bitter defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, Vox's Zack Beauchamp waded into the simplistic debate about whether "economic anxiety" or racism was to blame for Trump's political success with a salvo on behalf of the racism explanation. Although that effort made some worthwhile points, it ultimately failed to explain why long-existing latent racism manifested in the sudden increase in xenophobia in formal politics.

    This week Beauchamp returned to the breach, which has only grown wider since Trump's victory. Now the battle is about whether economic populism offers a way to stop Trump and the international march of the far right, rather than whether economic dislocation caused that march in the first place.

    Beauchamp doesn't think Bernie Sanders–style economic populism can foil the far right. But his argument is much more ambitious: he sets out to prove that economically populist policies stoke, rather than ameliorate, far-right political tendencies. To do that, he deploys the following claims:

    *European countries that adopted more generous redistributive policies in the post–World War II era were more vulnerable to far-right politics than those that adopted less generous ones.

    *The far right's rise occurred over the past several decades and continues despite the Left's efforts to buy its supporters off with socialism. The reason why is that continuous immigration has run up against an electorate that is irredeemably racist and only becomes more so as it perceives immigrants to be the beneficiaries of the welfare state.

    *Recent cases in which once-center-left parties swung decisively to the left - notably, the UK Labour Party - have proved politically disastrous and only further exacerbated the loss of political ground to the far right.

    *American history is replete with white supremacy, and that fact is probably the major reason why politics in the US has consistently been several notches to the right of our European counterparts.

    Of these claims, only the last one resembles reality. All the others are blatant misreadings of recent and not-so-recent history.

    According to Beauchamp's stylized view of European politics, social democracy exists along a one-dimensional continuum, with variation in the degree to which it was enacted into policy in different countries after 1945. Combining the rising tide of immigration since the 1970s with the ex-ante degree of social generosity, Beauchamp concludes that redistribution is perceived as a giveaway to outsiders, and hence motivates backlash politics.

    What's missing here is an understanding of what actually happened to European social democracy along the way. So let me supply a hopefully slightly better potted history.

    During the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, elite policymakers in Western Europe came to the conclusion that it was no longer possible for the welfare state to operate as it had since 1945. Their project thereafter has been twofold: to convince the public that their diagnosis is right, and to enact (what they consider) necessary neoliberal reforms by any means necessary.

    The first task proved difficult with certain reforms (notably liberalizing labor markets) and easier with others (implementing a fixed exchange rate regime, effectively blocking full employment macroeconomic policy, though not explicitly described as such by its proponents).

    Gradually, elites shifted their emphasis toward the second strategy. Their primary means of forcing through reform has been the non-democratic policymaking machinery that the European Union put in place in the 1980s and '90s to straitjacket national political actors. (A policymaking machinery that national actors have largely gone along with, since they too are convinced that their domestic policies need a heavy dose of neoliberal reform.)

    This hollowing out of national politics has had a profound effect on European social democracy. As power shifted from democratically accountable to democratically unaccountable institutions through privatization and European integration, the state's capacity to do anything about popular (as opposed to elite) grievances eroded and discontent exploded.

    The ideal end goal of contemporary European social democratic parties is perhaps best embodied by Germany's Hartz Reforms. Enacted by a Social Democratic government in the early to mid 2000s over the objections of the country's labor unions, the labor market reforms occasioned a split in the party that has not been bridged since. According to the consensus narrative, the measures left Germany in better shape than ever, allowing it to weather the Great Recession and become a haven for economic and political refugees.

    Beauchamp buys this assessment, endorsing - without evidence - the view that too much redistribution and regulation causes economic problems. Yet the Hartz Reforms are not responsible for Germany's relative macroeconomic success. In fact, they've worsened its labor market outcomes.

    Beauchamp's point is not to conduct a policy evaluation, of course, but to presuppose that such an evaluation has already been conducted. And that serves his real rhetorical aim: to discredit the notion that social-democratic policies offer a solution to an emboldened far right. That it might be exactly the failure of these neoliberal reforms and the disrepute they've brought the leaders and factions who spearheaded them that caused social democracy's parlous state is nowhere entertained. The sea change in social democracy goes entirely unmentioned in Beauchamp's piece.

    Which brings us to the parallel potted history of the European far right. Beauchamp's method is to recount a series of dates and country names: Jen-Marie Le Pen's creation of the Front National in France in 1972; its electoral breakthrough in the 1984 European elections (which Beauchamp doesn't note immediately followed a round of fiscal austerity inflicted by a Socialist government); Jorg Haider's takeover of the Freedom Party in Austria in 1986; Pim Fortuyn's 2002 assassination on the cusp of winning an outsized share of the vote in a Dutch parliamentary election; and Le Pen's success at reaching the French presidential election's second round that year. The narrative here is of a transnational, steady rise to power.

    That telling is almost wholly false. The European far right has existed continuously since World War II, with outbreaks in different countries at different times, each of which is an interesting political phenomenon in its own right.

    Beauchamp doesn't mention, for instance, Le Pen's first appearance on the French political scene: the 1956 general election, when Le Pen was elected as part of a wave of followers of the lower-middle-class, xenophobic, populist tax-revolter Pierre Poujade. Why omit that election? Because it would hinder Beauchamp's claim, pointing as it does to a social movement that has long existed on the fringes of politics and society and comes closest to power only when the political establishment is most discredited in the public mind. And that is exactly where we are now.

    The reason the European political establishment, particularly of the center-left variety, is held in contempt is not because it tried making the welfare state more generous, only to have the electorate turn against them out of the racist belief that foreigners were vacuuming up all the benefits. The center-left establishment is disdained because it tried to bypass national politics and become the high priest-caste of a regressive European order.

    Which brings us to the UK Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's election as its leader. Beauchamp's move here is to conflate Corbyn with his hapless predecessor, Ed Miliband, and thereby link Labour's poor performance since 2010 to one big move to the left. In truth, Miliband inherited a party burned by its association with the financial crisis and its willingness to go along with the Iraq War, and steered it through treacherous waters with a mix of Blairite and more populist rhetoric (his greatest success being a proposal to regulate power companies).

    Although Beauchamp paints the 2015 general election result as a disaster for Labour, the incumbent Tory-led coalition government came very close to losing, and the current Tory government enjoys the slimmest parliamentary majority since the 1970s. Labour netted seats at Conservative and Liberal Democrat expense in England; its total count suffered because the Scottish electorate deserted the party in favor of the Scottish National Party - a move driven by Scotland's overwhelming disgust for the incumbent government and hostility to the Westminster Labour faction's record under Blair and Brown. Far from being a failure of the left, these results were further evidence of the establishment's tarnished legitimacy.

    This is the environment that propelled Corbyn to the top of Labour. His candidacy in the leadership election later that year was given a crucial boost by the parliamentary party's failure to oppose the reelected Tory government's cuts to social welfare early in the parliament's term - feeding the perception of a hapless, ideologically adrift party leadership in need of a drastic shake up.

    Notably, the name "David Cameron" appears not once in Beauchamp's account of recent British political history. Yet the reason Cameron won the 2015 election was the big giveaway he made to shore up his right flank: the Brexit referendum. When Brexit ended up passing - despite the opposition of every major party - it was a gigantic slap in the face to the incumbent establishment. (Oddly, Beauchamp portrays Brexit as discrediting Corbyn - mirroring the way that Corbyn's intraparty opponents blamed his leadership for the vote, even though the Labour electorate overwhelmingly opposed Brexit and its winning margin was drawn from the English middle class, long the Tories' electoral backbone.)

    The reason this political moment feels different - the threat of the far right more threatening, the wan protection offered by the political establishment least reassuring - has nothing to do with the far right itself, nor with the failure of traditional social-democratic policies. Indeed, since Beauchamp assumes that social democracy has been static since 1945, it cannot possibly have caused a political phenomenon that only thrust itself upon us in the last few years.

    The difference - the critical break - lies in the behavior of the establishment near-right in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It perceived, far sooner than the hapless social democrats of the European mainstream, that the consensus economic policies of the post-1970s era were doomed in the public mind. Having no other acceptable economic program to fall back on, they moved to assimilate xenophobia and use it as both an offensive and defensive weapon for the coming populist onslaught. That is what Cameron did when he acceded to a Brexit referendum, and that is what the Republican Party did when it nominated Donald Trump for the presidency.

    Which brings us, finally, back home. The last section of Beauchamp's article draws upon the great work of Eric Foner and his many disciples. American democracy and American government, Foner argues, have been stained by white supremacy from the country's founding right up through the present. The disenfranchisement of a large segment of what would have been a core constituency for an American social-democratic party - southern blacks - helps explain twentieth- and twenty-first century political and policy outcomes, well beyond the dire consequences for disenfranchised blacks themselves. This is a basic, ineluctable fact of American politics.

    That's not where Beauchamp ends up, however. Instead he blames the victim for social democracy's failure in the US: by advocating economic egalitarianism in hostile political territory, he argues, economic populists brought defeat upon themselves as a racist electorate interpreted that agenda as a bid to overturn the racial hierarchy.

    As Matt Bruenig has written, the unspoken implication of Beauchamp's narrative is that any left economic agenda must first make it clear that the racial hierarchy will under no circumstances be threatened. "You can have diversity or you can have economic justice, but you can't have both," to use Bruenig's characterization. The acceptance of that false dichotomy, of course, is what gave us "super-predators," "the end of welfare as we know it," and the Obama administration's absolute prohibition on uttering the word "poverty" in public prior to its 2012 reelection.

    Yet if Beauchamp's interpretation is correct, then the US should never have seen anything other than reactionary economic policy. And that's obviously not the case.

    Interracial, interethnic social movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century won major reforms in the face of implacable hostility from both white supremacists and capitalist interests. And insofar as Progressive Era politicians betrayed the integrated coalitions that brought them to power, the sellout took place behind the closed doors of the statehouses and the United States Capitol. They most certainly did not reflect the impossibility of forming a class-based, multiracial political coalition.

    Then there was the period from 1940 to 1970, which witnessed the greatest progress in closing the racial wealth and earnings gaps since Reconstruction, thanks to the strength of the New Deal coalition and the labor movement, which integrated the federal government's military-industrial supply chain (as well as the military itself, following the war), and the Civil Rights Movement, which successfully pressed the federal government to intervene in the South on behalf of equal rights. That advance was eventually turned back the same way it was during Reconstruction: through an alliance of white supremacy and implicitly racialized "free market" ideology, the latter of which came to dominate both major political parties.

    In short, Trump cannot simply have been caused by white supremacy, because we have always had white supremacy. What we haven't always had is the breakdown of elite consensus and the center-left's veneration of procedural norms and reliance on "non-partisan" third-party validators to fight what is in fact an ideological power struggle.

    Insofar as Beauchamp has a rhetorical opponent rather than a straw man, it is the Left's backlash against this retrograde, apologetic politics, which comes at a time when the latter has finally and abjectly failed to win or hold power at the federal, state, or local level. And that failure has occurred because centrist apologetics are up against the real thing: far-right xenophobia, shoulder to shoulder with plutocracy, dominating our national politics and threatening the lives and wellbeing of millions of our American and immigrant brethren.

    Winning justice for those oppressed groups, if it is to happen, will owe nothing to the politics for which Beauchamp fights his rearguard action.

    [Mar 23, 2017] On the congressional Russian pant sniffing hearings, this is most worthy of a fast read

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    uncle tungsten , March 23, 2017 at 5:16 am

    On the congressional Russian pant sniffing hearings, this is most worthy of a fast read:

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/03/23/conspiracy-against-president-trump.html

    [Mar 23, 2017] The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported

    Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported. ..."
    "... The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes. ..."
    "... The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too. ..."
    "... It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.' ..."
    "... It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .) ..."
    "... Revealing this is treason. ..."
    "... People will die. ..."
    "... I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody. ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    There's also this showing evidence that Trump Tower was specifically monitored during the Obama administration, although the probe was targeting Russian mafia and not Trump and was done well before he declared his candidacy.

    The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported.

    Between 2011 and 2013 the Bureau had a warrant to spy on a high-level criminal Russian money-laundering ring, which operated in unit 63A of the iconic skyscraper - three floors below Mr Trump's penthouse.

    Not exactly a confirmation of Trump's rather wild claims, but something. Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.

    uncle tungsten , March 22, 2017 at 9:40 pm

    Ok, so they were just after the Russian mafia, phew I feel better already. So they got the felons and they are all arrested?

    What utter BS! Why is Semion Mogilevitch still at large in Hungary and no extradition process? What about Felix Sater and Steve Wynn and on and on. Why are they incapable of prosecuting mafia mobsters and instead chasing politicians?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 22, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    That said, it was what happening potentially to all citizens, not just Donald Trump. I dislike this intensely, but why should Trump get special dispensation over other citizens? Would like to know the reason for that.

    Like Watergate, it's really about the denial or the lying. "When did you know about the, er, collecting?" For how many days have we ridiculed Trump for his alternative universe imagination?

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:25 am

    > He can join the other 310 million of us who can be "incidentally collected".

    Didn't your mother tell you that 310 million wrongs don't make a right? Neither party establishment cares about that quaint concept, civil liberties. If Obama's flip flip on FISA reform in July 2008, giving the Telco's retroactive immunity for Bush's warrantless surveillance, didn't convince you, then his 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy should have.

    fritter , March 23, 2017 at 10:38 am

    Not to mention monitoring a politician opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm convinced Trump must pretty clean relatively because the IC hasn't gotten rid of him yet and you know they have all of his communications.

    I'm with Lambert on neither party caring. I knew all I needed to when Obama voted for FISA and the following years just reinforced how corrupt the Dems were. There is an import point here though. I don't think Trump would have thought that all of the surveillance would be applied to him personally. It was just about other people. It was probably a legitimate eye opener. Now Trump is at the head of the surveillance apparatus. Instead of asking Wikileaks to release all of Clintons emails, he should just do it himself.

    The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes.

    Code Name D , March 22, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    Not just incidental, in Congressional hearings, Comey flat out says that Trump and his team were investigated for Russian connections, and that none were found. The question now is was the investigations properly secured or not. Something completely in the air.

    But team Dem is still playing the "wire tap" canad.

    Randy , March 22, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too.

    allan , March 22, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    This is now turning into high comedy low farce:

    Devin Nunes Commits "Felonious Leaking" [Emptywheel]

    and @mkraju:

    WYDEN, member of Senate Intel, says Nunes' statements "would appear to reveal classified information, which is a serious concern."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 22, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.'

    polecat , March 22, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    they're going all Fellini on us now --

    wilroncanada , March 22, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    And here I thought they were only looking through a glass, darkly.

    fresno dan , March 22, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef
    March 22, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .)

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:31 am

    And scripted by Cersei Lannister

    allan , March 22, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Also, this kind of incidental collection has been known about for years. Here's a Barton Gellman, Julie Tate and Ashkan Soltani article (linked to by Emptywheel)
    from the WaPo in 2014 and based on the Snowden documents:

    In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are     [WaPo]

    Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.

    Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.

    And what was the reaction of many Congresspersons
    (including many Dems, and all of the GOP except maybe Rand Paul and Justin Amash)?
    Revealing this is treason. People will die.
    And Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has called for Snowden's execution.

    fresno dan , March 22, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    allan
    March 22, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Sorry allan – I got all excited at seeing a Nunes article in ZeroHedge and posted a comment – your article is better and it makes for more coherent comment threads to keep them together – I should have looked before I leaped (posted).

    Nunes: "I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the Intelligence Community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.
    Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration-details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value-were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
    I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
    To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team."

    ==============================================
    So the worm turns. The hypocrisy espoused by all sides is ..well, 11th dimensional.

    3.14e-9 , March 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    fresno dan, this was a major topic of discussion during the committee hearing with Comey and Rogers on Monday. I listened to the whole thing – all five hours and 18 minutes' worth – because I suspected that the corporate media would omit important details or spin it beyond recognition. And so they did.

    The bipartisan divide is being portrayed as Democrats wanting to get to the truth of Russian efforts to snuff out Democracy, and Republicans wanting to "plug leaks" (see Lambert's RCP except above), with some reports suggesting the Rs are advocating stifling free speech, prosecuting reporters for publishing classified information, and the like.

    Republican committee members were indeed focused on the leaks, and there was talk about how to prevent them, but their concern – at least as they expressed publicly on Monday – was specifically related to whether all those current and former officials, senior officials, etc., quoted anonymously in the NYT and WaPo (the infamous "nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies") violated FISA provisions protecting information about U.S. persons collected incidentally in surveillance of foreign actors.

    Sure, they're playing their own game, and it could be a ruse to divert attention from the Trump campaign's alleged Russian ties or simply to have ammo against the Ds. Even so, after listening to all their arguments, I believe they are on more solid ground than all the Dem hysteria about Russian aggression and Trump camp treason.

    I don't think I'll ever get Trey Gowdy's cringe-worthy performance during the Benghazi hearings out of my head, but he made some pretty good points on Monday, one of which was that investigating Russian interference and possible ties between Trump advisers and Russia is all well and good, but there may or may not have been any laws broken; whereas leaking classified information about U.S. citizens collected incidentally under FISA is clearly a felony with up to 10 years. Comey confirmed that by saying that ALL information collected under FISA is classified.

    And then he repeatedly refused to say whether he thought any classified information had been leaked or existed at all (I counted more than 100 "no comment" answers from Comey, who astonishingly managed to find 50 different ways to say it).

    My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability.

    In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's hearing about the possibility that some of what has been reported was fabricated. Then, you might expect Comey to say something like that. For all his talk about not tolerating leaks from his agency, blahblah, it was clear that he'll provide his own people with cover, if necessary. I think that's what Gowdy and a couple other Republicans were getting at.

    It goes without saying, but I'll add that the Dems were hardly even trying to disguise their real goal, which isn't protecting the American People® from the evil Russkies, but taking down Trump.

    fresno dan , March 22, 2017 at 11:56 pm

    3.14e-9
    March 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    Thanks for watching the whole thing – the nation owes you a debt of gratitude.

    "My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability."

    First, I a squillion percent agree with you. This is a big, bit deal because essentially the military/IC/neocons is trying to wrest control of the civilian government – the idea that the CIA is some noble institution that wants the best for all Americans is preposterous, yet accepted by the media, which proves how much propaganda we are fed. The sheep like following, the mandatory use of the adjective "murderous thug" before the name of "Putin" just shows that most of the media has been bought off or has lost all their critical thinking faculties.

    But I also don't want to be a hypocrite so I will explain that I don't have too much of a problem with leaks. WHAT I do have a problem with is the purposeful naivete or ignorance of the media that the CIA and/or facets of the Obama administration is trying to thwart rapprochement with Russia. Administrations BEFORE they are sworn in talk to foreign governments – the sheer HYSTERIA, the CRIME of talking to a Russian is beyond absurd. We are being indoctrinated to believe all Russia, all bad

    There is a ton of information about Podesta and the Clintons dealing with Russia for money. If Flynn and whatshisname are just grifting that is pedestrian stuff and everybody in Washington does it (I thing they call it "lobbying"). If there is REAL treason something should have come out by now.

    3.14e-9 , March 23, 2017 at 3:27 am

    Thanks, fd.

    I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing to take the time to dig for them or, in this case, to sit through a hearing as though I were covering it as a member of the press – especially when I don't even have to wash my hair or get dressed!

    I didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with leaks. I certainly encouraged enough of them in my time, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with publishing leaked material, even certain kinds of classified information. It depends.

    There's the kind of "classified" information that is restricted expressly to keep the public from knowing something they have a right to know, and there's information that's classified to protect individual privacy. The first kind should be leaked early and often. The second kind, close to never (and off the top of my head I can't think of an instance when it would be OK).

    Even though journalists aren't (and shouldn't be) held liable for publishing classified information given to them by a third party, they need to be scrupulous in their decisions to do so. Is it in the public interest? Who or what might be harmed? Would sitting on the information cause more harm than publicizing it? Does it violate someone's constitutional rights?

    These questions can get tricky with someone like Flynn, who's clearly a public figure and thus mostly fair game. However, if I had been reporting that story, I think I would have sat on it until I had more information, even at the risk of getting scooped – unless, of course, I was in cahoots with the leakers and out to get him and his boss.

    At that point, I am no longer an objective journalist committed to fair and accurate reporting, but a participant in a political cause. Although newspapers throughout history have taken sides, and pure "fact-based" journalism is a myth, there's a big difference between having an editorial slant and being an active participant in the story. Evidently, BezPo has decided that the latter is not only acceptable, but advantageous.

    Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on when I'm likely preaching to the converted. I feel very strongly about this issue, and it's disconcerting to me, as a lifelong Democrat, that I agreed more with the Republicans in that hearing. At the same time, the D's propaganda machine is pumping out so much toxic fog that it's shaking my faith in unfettered freedom of the press.

    Exactly what Putin wants, right?

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:46 am

    > I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing to take the time to dig for them

    Hmm. NC needs an in-house emptywheel

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:38 am

    I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody.

    It doesn't, er, bug me that 70-year-old Beltway neophyte Trump used sloppy language - "wiretap" - to describe this state of affairs. (I don't expect any kind of language from Trump but sloppy.) All are, therefore one is. It does bug me that the whole discussion gets dragged off into legal technicalities about what legal regimen is appropriate for which form of Fourth Amendment-destruction (emptywheel does this a lot). The rules are insanely complicated, and it's fun to figure them out, rather like taking the cover off the back of a Swiss watch and examining all the moving parts. But the assumption is that people follow the rules, and especially that high-level people (like, say, Comey, or Clapper, or Morrel, or Obama) follow the complicated rules. That assumes facts not in evidence.

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:28 am

    Incidental collection was always a likely scenario.

    We've also seen statements from people like GHCQ that clains they surveilled Trump at Obama's behest were "absurd," but those are non-denial denials. I can't recall a denial denial. Am I missing something?

    [Mar 23, 2017] Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

    Notable quotes:
    "... to influence our Atlantic Council! ..."
    "... our Atlantic Council! ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    craazyboy , March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
    ______________________

    Ukrania IS A NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!!

    Ukrainian World Congress
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_World_Congress

    Members[edit]
    European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
    Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
    Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
    Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
    Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
    Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
    Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
    France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
    Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
    Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
    Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
    Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
    Italy
    Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
    Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
    Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
    Norway
    Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
    Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
    Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
    Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
    Serbia
    Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
    Spain
    Switzerland
    United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
    Others
    Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
    Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
    Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
    Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
    Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
    Paraguay:
    United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
    United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) [2]
    Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"

    They also are attempting to influence our Atlantic Council!

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

    Funding[edit]
    In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations from more than twenty-five governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.[34] Concerned that scholars from the organization could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report requiring full disclosure of witnesses testifying before Congress.[35] Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian World Congress, and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.[9][36]

    Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, CrowdStrike, is a senior fellow of our Atlantic Council!

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

    CrowdStrike also has hired some top FBI security professionals. Revolving Door!

    Keep plenty of Declaration of War forms handy. We're gonna need 'em!!!!

    [Mar 23, 2017] Houston, we have a problem

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected. ..."
    "... You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various targets over the last several years. ..."
    "... This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag. ..."
    "... Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. ..."
    "... The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc? ..."
    "... But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. ..."
    "... It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.. ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    TeethVillage88s , Mar 23, 2017 6:54 PM

    Yes, they have your Apples too:

    Crash Overide -> aloha_snakbar , Mar 23, 2017 7:39 PM

    Maxine Waters: 'Obama Has Put In Place' Secret Database With 'Everything On Everyone'

    Vilfredo Pareto , Mar 23, 2017 7:01 PM

    The rank and file of the IC are not involved in this. So let's not tar everyone with the same brush, but Obama revised executive order 12333 so that communication intercepts incidentally collected dont have to be masked and may be shared freely in the IC.

    Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected.

    You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various targets over the last several years.

    What might your "synthetic" surveillance report look like?

    Chupacabra-322 , Mar 23, 2017 7:04 PM

    It's worth repeating.

    There's way more going on here then first alleged. From Bloomberg, not my choice for news, but There is another component to this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted.

    It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

    Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity.

    This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

    Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."

    @?realDonaldTrump?

    The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

    President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.............

    But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely.

    It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.. ..... But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage - or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.....

    [Mar 22, 2017] Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ, Karma is biting him in his arse

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN video 1:08 quoting the WSJ Opinion article today. "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'" ..."
    "... I think the US Presidency is like the Ruler of the universe in Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Anybody who wants the job is not suitable. ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 22, 2017 at 08:35 AM
    Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ, Karma is biting him in his arse . What's comes next a call for his Impeachment from FOX News 'Friends and Family'?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/donald-trump-wsj-trust/index.html

    CNN video 1:08 quoting the WSJ Opinion article today. "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'"

    By Eugene Scott, CNN...Wed...March 22, 2017...Updated 10:16 AM ET,

    "(CNN)President Donald Trump's repeated lack of "respect for the truth" puts him in jeopardy of being viewed as "a fake President," The Wall Street Journal editorial board says.

    "Two months into his presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he's a fake President," reads the editorial, which appeared online Tuesday night."...

    libezkova said in reply to im1dc... , March 22, 2017 at 03:48 PM
    "Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ"

    Was not WSJ a supporter of Hillary ? Am I missing something ?

    reason -> im1dc... , March 22, 2017 at 09:05 AM
    I think the US Presidency is like the Ruler of the universe in Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Anybody who wants the job is not suitable.
    Peter K. -> reason ... , March 22, 2017 at 09:14 AM
    Hillary was suitable, but not a very good candidate following on Obama's charm. Can't believe the center-left ran a candidate who lost to Trump.

    Well yes I can. And I can believe they don't want to do a post mortem. Ambitious careerists like PGL are never good at self-criticism or insights.

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , March 22, 2017 at 03:08 PM
    "Hillary was suitable"

    Suitable for whom?

    [Mar 22, 2017] 6 years after catastrophic regime change in Libya, read the UK Parliament report on how NATOs war was based on lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne , March 22, 2017 at 06:10 AM

    https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/844247162817003520

    Ben Norton @BenjaminNorton

    6 years after catastrophic regime change in Libya, read the UK Parliament report on how NATO's war was based on lies

    http://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

    U.K. Parliament report details how NATO's 2011 war in Libya was based on lies

    British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse

    10:59 AM - 21 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... March 22, 2017 at 06:11 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/world/africa/libya-isis.html

    March 20, 2017

    Warnings of a 'Powder Keg' in Libya as ISIS Regroups

    By ERIC SCHMITT

    Punishing strikes in December and January hurt the terrorist group, but it is exploiting the chaos and political vacuum gripping the country, American and allied officials say.

    [Mar 20, 2017] Senator Hints That Trump May Resign I Think He Is Going To Get Himself Out

    Mar 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    After Flynn left the odds might well be against Trump
    by Pinto Currency -> xythras , Mar 19, 2017 9:19 PM

    March 19 BREAKING - Documents Show Obama Surveiled Entire Trump Family For 8 Years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTT5FVyGMUU

    Now we'll see who resigns (and gets arrested)

    xythras , Mar 19, 2017 9:18 PM

    An Alpha Male NEVER quits. By the look at that trophy wife, we can guarantee Trump is an Alpha Male

    First Lady Melania Looked Stunning in her St. Patrick's Day Outfit

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-03-18/first-lady-melania-looked-stun...

    LetThemEatRand -> wee-weed up , Mar 19, 2017 9:36 PM

    It's all about fostering division. Give the snowflakes hope and anger. Give the Trumpbots something to rail against. Hell, in reading this article, I almost forgot that Goldman Sachs runs the Trump administration and Feinstein.

    nmewn -> LetThemEatRand , Mar 19, 2017 9:46 PM

    DiFi, DiFi...wasn't she the one who freaked out when she found out Obama's NSA was spying on her...or was it..."government officials who wished to remain anonymous" working for the CIA?

    It all gets sooo confusing ;-)

    LetThemEatRand -> nmewn , Mar 19, 2017 9:50 PM

    They are all publicly against the Deep State spying on themselves except when it comes to doing anything about it (Trump included).

    Simple question: Trump says he was wiretapped illegally by intelligence agencies. Why is he doubling down and saying those same agencies need more $$ and power?

    DeadFred -> nmewn , Mar 19, 2017 10:05 PM

    Where is Obama anyway? Laying low? We can always hope he just disappears. Did Eric Braverman ever show up? I know he got a job with Google but has anyone seen him?

    SilverRoofer -> DeadFred , Mar 19, 2017 10:08 PM

    Getting pounded by gay men

    And Michael of course

    BlindMonkey -> jcaz , Mar 19, 2017 10:19 PM

    Does anyone think Feinstein would pass a deep look into her buisiness dealings with her husband Richard Blum? I fucking doubt it very, very seriously. If the deep state turned the eye of sauron on her, she would be wearing county jumpers rather quickly.

    sleigher -> BlindMonkey , Mar 19, 2017 10:36 PM

    "Does anyone think Feinstein would pass a deep look into her buisiness dealings with her husband Richard Blum?"

    "~20% of congress people could not pass a background check."

    Yes We Can. But... -> Pinto Currency , Mar 19, 2017 10:28 PM

    I'm thinking the breaking of this news of Obama wrongdoing has got to be why in the span of two weeks he went from being 1) newly HQ'd/bunkered in DC and 'ready to roll' against Trump, to 2) on the other side of the planet for a long stay in French Polynesia, apparently w/o his 'wife'.

    Whatcha runnin' from, Barry?

    Lorca's Novena , Mar 19, 2017 9:19 PM

    (((Feinstein))) fake news, rumors, gossip, everything evil in the world. This bitch is one of the many who destroyed California.

    pilager -> Lorca's Novena , Mar 19, 2017 9:35 PM

    Drain that perverted awamp... no mercy, take them all down ...

    Drain it!

    Giant Meteor , Mar 19, 2017 9:25 PM

    Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein says ...

    Another not the onion piece ..

    [Mar 17, 2017] Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself." ..."
    "... Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. ..."
    "... The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules. ..."
    "... President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. ..."
    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 16, 2017 at 04:45 PM , 2017 at 04:45 PM
    Really? This WH is unhinged from all known and verifiable reality and a clear and present danger to our national security, peace, and prospertiy, imo, of course

    "Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/16/sean-spicer-just-suggested-that-obama-used-british-intelligence-to-spy-on-trump-not-so-much/

    "Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"

    By *Henry Farrell...March 16, 2017...7:12 PM

    "In his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just repeated a claim that President Barack Obama had used British spies to surveil President Trump. After laying out a number of different media sources which Spicer suggested supported President Trump's contentions that he was wiretapped, he concluded:

    Last, on Fox News on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement – quote – Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British intelligence spying agency. So simply by having two people saying to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this. Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.

    This is an explosive accusation.

    What's GCHQ?

    GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters - is Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency. Like the NSA, it engages in extensive international surveillance. It furthermore has a close relationship with the United States. Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself."

    Close collaboration can lead to temptation

    Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. Jennifer Granick, in her new Cambridge University Press book, American Spies: Modern Surveillance, Why You Should Care, and What To Do About It, notes that Five Eyes countries aren't supposed to spy on each other's citizens. However, she says that the NSA has prepared policies that would allow it to spy on Five Eyes citizens without permission. She furthermore suggests that:

    The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules.

    Granick notes that if there are rules that would protect Americans from Five Eyes spying, or about the ways that the NSA, FBI or CIA could use information from foreign partners, we haven't seen them.

    But don't jump to conclusions

    Granick's arguments point to some important potential problems in close spying relationships. If there are rules to prevent the abuses that she fears, we don't know what they are. However, her concerns are with surveillance of ordinary citizens. It is wildly unlikely that U.S. and British intelligence agencies would secretly collaborate to monitor a U.S. presidential candidate. The political risks to both sides would be quite enormous. While critics like Granick and Snowden worry that intelligence agencies have too much unchecked power, they happily acknowledge that most members of the intelligence community are motivated by a sincere concern for American well-being. If the United States was really using foreign intelligence as a cut-out to spy illegally on the Republican candidate for president, all it would take would be one sincere objector or one worried conservative to create a scandal that would dwarf Watergate. Nor would British intelligence have any obvious motivation to collaborate in such an arrangement. The British government knows that it will have to deal with both Democratic and Republican administrations, and would have no appetite for an intrigue which would have little obvious benefit to Britain, but which could cripple the U.S.-British relationship for decades.

    Nor is there any actual proof

    Judge Napolitano, a Fox News television personality, does not seem to have good evidence for these extraordinary claims. As he describes it on his own website:

    Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.

    This statement is notable both for being strategically vague and for not understanding what the NSA does. Spicer quotes a strong claim by Napolitano on Fox News that Obama "went outside the chain of command" and "used GCHQ." Napolitano is much more cautious in the print version, where he claims that unnamed intelligence sources said that GCHQ "most likely" provided transcripts. That's not a claim as to fact, made by someone who claims to have seen the transcripts or had first-hand knowledge of the relationship. It is a (in my opinion highly dubious) suggestion as to plausibility, made by someone who does not claim to have direct knowledge of what happened.

    Furthermore, Napolitano doesn't seem to have any very strong understanding of the actual controversies between the defenders and critics of modern surveillance law. For example, Napolitano seems to believe that GCHQ is able to generate transcripts because it has "full access" to NSA computers, which in turn " has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's." In fact, if the GCHQ were looking for data on American communications, it would be far better advised to look to its own resources than to the NSA. While critics argue that the NSA collects too much 'incidental' data and metadata on Americans, they do not claim that the NSA has "the digital versions" (whatever that means) of all American communications, or anything like it. Napolitano is not a sound source for explosive political claims.

    This statement will hurt intelligence cooperation

    President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. U.S. intelligence partners - in the Five Eyes and elsewhere - are already nervous about sharing sensitive intelligence with the Trump administration, since they do not know how it will be used or who it will be shared with. This accusation will greatly exacerbate these fears, suggesting that the Trump administration does not prioritize continued close collaboration with its intelligence partners. Both critics and defenders of cross-national intelligence collaboration agree that there has been an extraordinarily high level of trust among a few select intelligence agencies since World War II. The "Five Eyes" was a club that other states clamored to get into (during the Snowden controversy, Germany tried to use revelations about U.S. spying as a lever to open the door to German participation in the Five Eyes). Now club members have much less reason to trust each other and membership looks substantially less attractive."

    *Henry Farrell is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. He works on a variety of topics, including trust, the politics of the Internet and international and comparative political economy.

    libezkova -> im1dc... , March 16, 2017 at 09:23 PM
    "Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"

    Looks like British and Dutch. And not necessary Obama himself.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-soft-coup-or-preserving-our-democracy/?mc_cid=2f82659492&mc_eid=32cf78e7e5

    == quote ==
    The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe.

    Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.

    Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.

    [Mar 17, 2017] One needs to read Gene Sharp books to learn about 198 specific methods (within the broad classes of nonviolent protest and persuasion, non-cooperation (social, economic and political) and nonviolent intervention ) used to depose the legitimate governments by intelligence agencies

    Mar 16, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Anachronism : March 16, 2017 at 05:38 AM

    Tom Wood has compiled a 30 year list of connections between Trump and Russia. The first 9 pages cover 1987 to 2015, then it moves to 2016. Every item is sourced, with a hyperlink to the original published news story. Sources include major newspapers, television stations, magazines, and major Websites. Pages 32 to 118 cover the period of Sept. 16, 2016 to March 14, 2017.

    https://politicalwire.com/2017/03/15/ultimate-trump-russia-timeline/

    Sanjait -> Anachronism ... , March 16, 2017 at 08:51 AM
    Fake news!

    /sarcasm

    mulp -> Anachronism ... , March 16, 2017 at 10:48 AM
    Who cares?

    Are you a doing anything to hike taxes and prices of food, energy, clothing in order to increase the wages and incomes of American workers?

    Anachronism said in reply to mulp... , March 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
    No I'm not. I'm standing up to the republicans who propose policies that do.
    libezkova -> Anachronism ... , March 16, 2017 at 08:24 PM
    Anachronism,

    You need to learn what "color revolution" is and what 198 specific methods (within the broad classes of nonviolent protest and persuasion, non-cooperation (social, economic and political) and nonviolent intervention ) are used to depose the legitimate government by intelligence agencies.

    Please read a couple of Jene Sharp book for a start

    http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

    https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Nonviolent-Action-Part-Two/dp/0875580718

    Also please compare the article you cited with the views of Philip Giraldi, who, unlike you, is not a newcomer to the field:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-soft-coup-or-preserving-our-democracy/?mc_cid=2f82659492&mc_eid=32cf78e7e5

    == quote ==

    Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.

    One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate" allegations have been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.

    It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election.

    The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained. Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.

    This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:

    The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI developed an interest in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have "any nefarious purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.

    The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also reporting that, "For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations," which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.

    In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.

    Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades.

    At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."

    In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.

    Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it.

    Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower "to my knowledge" because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."

    The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.

    President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.
    After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the 35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made public.

    Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.
    Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."
    Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn was eventually forced to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA, FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.
    One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited "four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.
    The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.
    Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives.
    The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.
    The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.
    The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter, frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.

    [Mar 17, 2017] The deep state will move to overthrow trump there is a secret agenda to allow a crisis and get rid of the president

    Video
    Mar 17, 2017 | www.shtfplan.com

    [Mar 17, 2017] Chickenhawks from Kagan family

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others. ..."
    "... Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State." ..."
    "... What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters? ..."
    "... The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. ..."
    "... After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened. ..."
    "... http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-mccain-founding-father-of.html ..."
    "... Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain. ..."
    "... I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President. ..."
    "... I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/ The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama. ..."
    "... Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. ..."
    "... "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks." ..."
    "... "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." ..."
    "... For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21] ..."
    "... Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues ..."
    "... But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. ..."
    "... "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?" ..."
    "... On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars. ..."
    "... It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland! ..."
    "... Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel " ..."
    "... the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. ..."
    Mar 17, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    Bart in Virginia March 15, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    It's not the Family Kagan, but rather as Glenn Greenwald dubbed them, The Warrior Kagan Family with a trade mark sign as suffix.

    I'll bet Victoria resigned from State, seeing her future there granting visas in Baku.

    Thanks, Robert, I haven't had a Kagan fix in quite a while!

    Kiza , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others.

    As to Mr Parry, calling them the American neocon royalty, it certainly is some foul-mouth royalty, telling another Zio servant EU to get f'ed.

    Thank you Robert Parry for a great article, just like Bart I was wondering what happened to the cookie distributing "royalty" after the Clinton fail. It is not surprising that they are now learning to manipulate outcomes from the opposition. Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State."

    Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours , as Pepé Le Pew likes to say.

    Skip Edwards , March 15, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others.

    I learned how to laugh again; and, at the expense of all those despicable Kagen's.

    Joe Tedesky , March 15, 2017 at 11:49 pm

    KIza there is good news inside Robert Parry's article if you look for it. One good thing is that Hillary isn't the president, and if she were one could only imagine what her and the Kagan's would be up to right now. The other piece of good news, is that the Kagan's are writing op-eds and not working for the Trump Adminstration.

    Now I have read somewhere where the U.S. is working with Russia, and that for the most part for now has to be done on the low key. Of course with news being 'fake' and all of that, who's to know?

    What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters?

    Cheney and Rumsfeld developed 'the Continuity of Government Program' and I'm wondering if that cast of characters could seep into the mix of things? Plus don't forget the ever reliable CIA So with all of that working against you, one could only wonder if Ghandi and Jesus could do much better up against this evil array of villains.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 12:10 am

    Here is something worth reading Tony Cartalucci explains the Deep State, and goes on to talk about how it may be defeated. Here's a hint, the world will not be run by the New World Order.

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/03/exposing-real-deep-state.html

    John , March 16, 2017 at 11:28 am

    Very good link, Joe!! The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. I would not look for much altruistic behavioral changes in human nature Greed is still the preferred method of operation .and firmly in control ..

    Common Tater , March 16, 2017 at 11:30 am

    Joe T.
    Excellent article, thanks!

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Joe, many thanks for this powerful link on the deep state, and its explanation of the multi-polar conditions needed, and as happening, plus the link you supplied below related to what's going on in Syria, also clear and helpful.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    I'm glad that you all found the link to be informative. I am posting another link to a Tony Cartalucci article that got my attention of his work a few years ago, and ever since I look forward to reading his reporting.

    This link is interesting for the fact that the original article was published March 2012 which was somewhere in the neighborhood of six months before the deadly attack took place in Benghazi. After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened.

    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-mccain-founding-father-of.html

    Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain.

    Curious , March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    Thanks for the two links Joe. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike McCain more than I already did, but I was wrong. I did like Senator Pauls' comment about McCain today however. He basically said McCain is a perfect example of why we should have term limits in the Senate, which is so true.

    Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 12:24 am

    Oh no, I did not mean that it is bad news this is why I wrote that the Kagans are learning to spew hate from the opposition not from the government. Like D5-5, I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President.

    As to Jesus, he self-sacrificed himself to show the way out of human predicament. Jesus was fighting against such ideologues of hate and moneychangers as the Kagans, who are an exemplar of the mad-gleaming-eye-greedy-finger types so well known in the old Europe. Just observe the first photo to the article: she looks like she would murder just about any baby in the world to take her sweet candy.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 am

    I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good.

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/

    The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama.

    At this stage of the game the best that I can put forward with, is we got to take one day at a time, in order to make sense of whatever the real news is going on inside Syria. From one article to another it's hard to tell who's fighting, or going to fight who. With the atmosphere here in America I'm waiting for an arrest to be made if you talk favorably about Russia, or Putin. Seriously, our MSM cable news networks are going hells bells on this Russian hacking, Russian tampering with our democracy, Russia has a puppet in the White House, Russia _______fill in the blank. We have gone totally nuts this time, and it looks like we are going to stay that way for awhile.

    I always like to ponder the politics that would have prevailed during the time of Jesus. If you get a grasp on that then Jesus really stands out better for what he was preaching too, and preaching against. I'm sure Herod or Ceasar had their Kagan's around in their day, and who knows how discreetly those ancient Kagan's could have whispered vile and nasty ideas of war and conquest into their leaders head. When it's all about power and money it's easy to lose ones head, or so they say. Let's all hope the Kagan's amount to be nothing more than sore losers.

    Peter Loeb , March 16, 2017 at 6:13 am

    WITH MCCAIN AS HELPER

    A good comment Joe Tedesky.

    As to Syria, we already have invaded and already plan more (see Defense Appropriation). Of interest would be Putin's response on the ground.

    (When Netanyahu went to Moskow to ask for help in getting Syria to reign in Iran, he was referred to the sovereign government of Syria! Is the current (and future) US invasion of the sovereign state of Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government??

    Ans: No! See UN Charter on aggression, I think it is Article 4(2) if memory serves. Besides the current administration wants to make all its sins of commission such as drones done by the CIA Which is to say covert and not accountable to anyone (such as DOD, White House etc.).Our invasion will evidently be
    accountable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    I am certain Moscow has a plan, a response (diplomatic or otherwise).

    Donald Trump likes war and being "Commander-in-Chief". All countries involved in war are always absolutely persuaded that their victory will be quick, easy etc.It also helps(??) the US economy as all wars have for hundreds of years. No one will oppose more money for defense. I have already contacted my Mass. Senators in regard to funds for the invasion of Syria as well as my Congressional Representative. (I expect little support. All lawgivers are dependent on AIPAC support )

    --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:15 am

    Except for Desert Storm every war has lasted long past it's end date, and even one could argue over Desert Storm if you add in the time of occupation or establishing no fly zones to how long we have been there.

    I'm not all that sure yet that Trump likes war. There are times he stresses peace, after he rally's the people around a powerful military speech. Now, what I do worry about is the people around him. NIkki Haley just recently in a NBC interview said how we should never trust Russia. Wow, and she is our UN ambassador. So much for statesmanship and diplomacy.

    As far as our CIA goes they are going to get everyone on this planet killed. It's long overdue to crunch the CIA down to being an information gatherer and stop with the convert intrigue. If we factor in stability and the quality of human life, then tell me about the one CIA operation which has been a success. The CIA's interference, and trashing of foreign government sovereignty is a disgrace, and should I add be prosecuted as a war crime in the highest order. If Trump could shred the CIA into a thousand pieces then I say, do it Mr President.

    The real problem we face while attempting to establish the Yinon Plan, is that we will finally either partner with Russia somehow over something, or end up fighting Russia and possibly not fight them through proxies. I don't see either Russia or the U.S. using nukes on each other at first, but I would be praying for the poor souls in places such as Iran, Yemen, or places like that. And while we are at it North and South Korea, and once again Japan would most likely be countries well inside the lines of being in jeopardy.

    Russia, and China, should be our natural allies, but there's nothing natural about our country's foreign policy when world hegemony overrides man's human nature to life in peace.

    John , March 16, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Joe,

    The other piece of good news is that they are actually starting to walk back the Russia hacked the election an we can prove it nonsense. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest piece at The Intercept. At long last sir have they actually some human decency? Nah!!!

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Thanks John I will be sure to read Greenwald's article, but you know we in America need a bogey man .so if not Russia then who?

    Dominic Pukallus , March 16, 2017 at 4:43 am

    Concerning the foul-mouthing, I was disturbed to hear such strong talk (at least to this earthy soul) in such a delicate voice. To me a sign of psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content. Another is causing the killing of no small amount of people with a large amount of apparent unconcern, but then again that's a net which would drag an alarming amount of people from corridors of power. Perhaps the majority of these have mastered the art of matching tone and content in their requirement to at least appear Human to their subjects.

    Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 6:00 am

    Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. Thank you.

    Nastarana , March 16, 2017 at 10:34 am

    Kiza, Please don't forget that is a "sign of psychopathy". There are other kinds of derangement in which the unfortunate sufferers are prone to the use of inappropriate body language and verbal tone, but are not necessarily a danger to others. As for the Kagans, I consider them to be criminals, plain and simple.

    Anon , March 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    I am waiting to see the male ballerina "foot soldiers" demanding transgender bathrooms in the trenches.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    Anon in 1919 Max Sennett was way ahead of you. You might get a kick out of watching Sennett's movie called 'Yankee Doodle in Berlin'. It is a story about an American soldier dressed as a woman going behind enemy lines to entice the Kaiser. Also notice the slanted propaganda of the way American Hollywood film producers were characterizing the Germans. We are all but a product of who came before us I'm sad to say .but hey enjoy the silent flick anyway.

    https://archive.org/details/YankeeDoodleInBerlin

    Oh and with all due respect let's at least give a salute to Chelsea Manning.

    BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:26 am

    BART IN VIRGINIA!!

    Are you really "Bart" as in short for "Bartholomew"!!!!

    Parry, thank you for a GREAT article.

    Early on you pegged them:

    "Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump."

    Then skillfully reminding us: "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks."

    Your conclusion is actually overly optimistic:

    "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers."

    Instead, the Deep State is preparing to begin getting rid of Trump on June 1st:

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/video-on-june-1st-the-deep-state-will-move-to-overthrow-trump-there-is-a-secret-agenda-to-allow-a-crisis-and-get-rid-of-the-president_03142017

    IF you the reader haven't read my "The Deep State Versus President Trump" it is time (on Amazon for only $12.95 or less).

    Parry, I will immediately post this EXCELLENT article on Facebook. Because my wife and I are living "by the skin of our teeth" on social security, I can't make a donation, but I will send in an article on why the Deep State wants Trump gone as a pro bono contribution. Hope you think it is worthy of publication.

    Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics, public policy) and Religion (books: "On the Buddha": "On Gandhi"; and "Why Christians and World-Peace Advocates Voted for President Donald Trump"), Northeastern University, Boston, MA-and the only Ph.D. in philosophy among the thousands that I and my mentor Professor Samuel Gorovitz know who voted for and supports Trump [no, Sam was and is opposed to our POTUS].

    dineesh , March 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Who is behind them rascals?

    evelync , March 15, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    Good question! And I don't know the answer, but I googled the question and FWIW depending on the reliability of the writers of the articles, here's what I found:

    "A Family Business

    There's also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.

    For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

    According to ISW's annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA's venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence in Afghanistan.

    Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See "Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War."]

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-26/meet-kagans-seeking-war-end-world

    from wikipedia:

    "In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative Jack Kemp. From 1984–86, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, he was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the United States Department of State Policy Planning Staff. From 1986–1988 he served in the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.[10]

    In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, Kagan was a strong advocate of the Iraq war.

    From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[12][13][14][15] He is also a member of the board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[16]

    During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[17][18]

    Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[19] and John Kerry.[20]

    Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21]

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

    also check out the footnotes from the wiki article ..

    Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues

    Bottom line, though, it seems like the Kagans have been at the center of Washington policy think for decades and decades and therefore fit neatly within the comfort zone of powerful people who carry out U.S. foreign policy – Republicans and Democrats.
    That's who we are, apparently ..
    I recently saw Wally Shawn's play in NYC – 'Evening at the Talk House', an amazing play about who we are – or have become .
    https://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/theater-review-evening-at-the-talk-house-is-wallace-shawns-political-party-trick-021617
    http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/theater-evening-at-the-talk-house-and-escaped-alone.html

    Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 11:26 pm

    Thank you for your research and report

    jaycee , March 15, 2017 at 9:28 pm

    It's not too difficult to identify the think-tanks the Kagans belong to or run. These organizations have web sites, and the web sites usually list who the funders are. That's the information you seek.

    For example, the Institute for the Study of War is supported by the likes of General Dynamics, CACI, Microsoft, Centerra, Capital Bank, etc.

    Diana , March 16, 2017 at 7:02 am

    Robbie Martin has produced a three-part documentary on them rascals called "A Very Heavy Agenda." It's well worth watching, but it's expensive the box set of the three DVDs costs $50.00. I opted for the Vimeo version, where each part can be purchased for $6.99 or rented for $2.99. You can watch the trailers and learn more at http://averyheavyagenda.com .

    Diana , March 16, 2017 at 8:10 am

    You can find the Vimeo versions at https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda . Watch the trailer for Part 3 and you will see that it refers to Robert Parry's "Family Kagan" article.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:03 am

    The ME warmongers are largely zionist Jews, including the Kagan/Nulands and the 2003 Iraq War II sponsors SecDef Wolfowitz and his Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser installed at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite war. The Kochs are of course complicit. Any who aren't zionist Jews are after their stolen US funds to Israel, fed to stink tanks and political bribe donations.

    The war in Iraq was such a success that the US was forced out having ensured the pro-Iran government it most feared, having built AlQaeda from a CIA proxy to a regional and then a worldwide enemy, and having guaranteed the violent Sunni uprising now called IS. Read Bamford's Pretext for War. Don't we need more of those wars.

    BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:29 am

    dineesh,

    This is a reply to your (lost in the undergrowth): MORE RASCALS, in fact, THE ENTIRE DEEP STATE.

    dineesh's question: Who is behind those rascals.

    D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    Take a look at Moon of Alabama on this Kagan rehash. The comments in response to the analysis also recommended. Posted today.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/03/third-times-the-charm-the-neocons-want-another-sunni-insurgency.html

    Sally Snyder , March 15, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    As shown in this article, the United States is using ammunition in Syria that is adding to the already significant problems that Syrians are facing:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/02/the-united-states-and-cancer-of-warfare.html

    Apparently, the lessons taught in Iraq have been forgotten.

    Scott , March 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    A lesson can be had only by those willing to learn. Democrats just lost over 900 seats across state and federal offices and even that proved not to be a teachable moment.

    Curious , March 15, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    What a disturbing headline. I had hoped they would have been neutered after the Hillary defeat.

    But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. It would shake their entire platform of blaming Russia to the core. It is difficult enough as it is to tell the originator of many internal docs leaked to the public, so the blame game is false as it is. I would welcome more release of the CIA vault 7 if only to show how often the CIA is involved in internal US politics and "homeland" situations. This meddling is supposedly against the law.

    One could only hope.

    Tannenhouser , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    Not only that .A 'democrats' views are so symbiotic to a kagans shows they play for the same team while occasionally wearing different color jersey's. Curious indeed . I share your hope.

    Jonathan , March 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    In connection with the legality of CIA meddling in internal affairs, and the Trump wire-tapping charge, Scott Ritter has made what seems to be a rather good point in a recent article published in Truthdig. The article digs a little deeper into the matter and comes up with a surprising and quite optimistic conclusion.
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_wiretapping_charge_could_contain_some_explosive_truth_20170314

    D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    As b says, analyst at Moon of Alabama (he's German by the way) on this topic, "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?"

    He also finds the Kaganista notions on a THIRD try at raising "the moderates" to get rid of Assad "drinking the kool aid."

    My question is how does this troop infusion, made problematical as Assad has not okayed it, calling it illegal, and which includes 2500 "tip of the spear" paratroopers in Kuwait, move the situation on, additional to (or beyond) the goal of cleaning out ISIS? To what, why? Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes for the sunnis) then what? Trump does an Obama and the US leaves again? Or cuts a deal with the neocons on pipeline projects etc?

    LJ , March 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    I read that article. The Qatar Turkey Pipeline was one of the hoped for outcomes of the Regime Change in Syria . This was problematic for Russia and will remain so. If the USA>NATO>EU thought that they could bring Turkey into the fold with this pipeline it might make sense but right now this is very unlikely.

    Personally I do not think Trump and Tillerson would go for World War .Do not forget that China is allied with Russia on this and they see Syria as very important to the completion of One Belt One Road'. Israel's role in the region and in Syria should not be forgotten ever. They are anxious about the Golan and Russia and they always want the USA to attack Iran. So does Saudi Arabia and you may have noticed the Saudi Foreign Minister dropping a comment a couple days ago that this planned action against Hezbollah and Iran is very much on the table.

    There are many heads on the chopping block right now not just Assad's, enemies and allies also. The Planners cannot control the outcome in Turkey (We played our card already), in Iraq, in Syria or in Lebanon. WE are not liked. All the USA can do at this point is destroy, we can never win hearts and minds in the Middle East.. Can of Worms.

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 am

    I think the biggest worry is to hope that whoever loses can bear the cost of loss. This Syrian war I don't think at this point is as much about ISIS as it is about land. Land for pipelines mostly, but land for a whole host of other reasons as well. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, are the predominant people who are fighting for space, but so are countries like Turkey, Saudi's, and the Israeli's in the Golan Heights. So stretching pipelines, and building new one road infrastrutures need land oh and let's not forget the Shia Crescent and Iran. This area is so messed up I'm not that sure even the winner will have won much more than a big headache.

    Enjoyed reading both of your comments, and thought I'd make some noise to accompany your conversation.

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:41 am

    Joe, both the Syrian and Iraq wars now have two purposes. First is to prevent the dreaded "Shia Crescent," and the second is to protect Israel. The latest surge in Iraq and Syria by the US forces is to keep the perpetual wars going by creating "Sunni" zones in Iraq and Syria. When the Iraqi Army and the Shia militias were battling the ISIS, there were no US boots on the ground. Same thing in Syria. Consider the timing of this surge. ISIS is almost routed in Iraq and Syria and all of a sudden Trump sends ground forces to help mop up the remnants of ISIS.

    The real purpose is not to clean up ISIS but to prevent the government forces to establish rule in Mosul. Saudi Arabia wants that part to remain Sunni. This way Iran doesn't win. The US wants to divide Iraq in three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, as has been her plan all along. Similarly, in Syria, if Assad wins the whole of Syria is under his rule. By inserting herself in the war, the US wants to set up a Sunni section on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel, to be a thorn in Assad's side and a Kurdish side to punish Erdogan for his behavior and keep him occupied. The wars will continue in the Middle East, the Military-Industrial Complex will continue to sell weapons and Israel will be worry free.

    What I don't understand is why is US so against the Shias. I can understand Israel's position. Israel got her rear end kicked twice by a tiny Hezbollah force but why US. It can't be just to please Israel or is it? So much bloodshed just for that.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

    The US is involved solely to get political campaign funds from Israel stolen from US "aid".

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:25 am

    Going back to the old communist days and Nassar the U.S. sided with Israel. That was back at a time when we Americans were exposed to the propaganda that Israeli's were like us Americans, and all Arabs were crazy. We were fine with Iran as long as we had the Shad there to protect our interest. The Iran Hostage event was excellent PR to demonize Iran for over a forty year period, and life goes on.

    You and I along with many others here believe now is a great time to hit the Middle East reset button .now how do we convince our country's leadership to do that, is the question.

    John P , March 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    Good article and I think you hit the nails on the heads MEexpert. Your final paragraph, I think the U.S. wants a stable ally in the region and they believe Israel fills that roll, even though I see little common interest in eithers ambitions, one for stability the other for annexations. Perhaps the U.S. politicians hold their noses and hope.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am

    The Qatar-Turkey pipeline concept tried to break the "Shiite crescent" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon and compete with the southern Russia-Turkey pipeline; otherwise they would not be seeking war near pipelines that could more easily have coexisted.

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:57 am

    "Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes for the sunnis) then what?"

    Why such concern about the Sunnis? In Iraq only 20% population is Sunni. Yet Saddam, a Sunni, ruled more that 60% Shias for 35 years and other Sunni rulers before that. There was no concern for their feelings or their safety by Papa Bush in 1991 or after that when Saddam gassed the Shias and the Kurds. Bahrain, on the other hand, at one time was 90% Shia with a Sunni ruler, thanks to the British. The Emir of Bahrain has been systematically stripping the Shias of their citizenship and importing Sunnis from other countries and giving them Citizenship by recruiting them into the Bahraini Armed Forces. Even when the uprising started in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia moved in there to put the uprising down, all US did was to send down the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs to reassure the Emir of Bahrain and to make sure that the 5th fleet was safe.

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    @ ME Expert:

    Thank you for your comments! I'm looking at the above responses, including the additional link on Syria from Joe, which provides historical perspective also, in terms of US establishing a presence in eastern Syria to be "a thorn in Assad's side" as you say, and continue to push for regional control allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.

    On your question why such concern about the Sunnis, here's my impression, which could be too simple.

    With the conquest of Iraq and Bremer's releasing the 400,000 military, a highly Shia favored sort of revenge government program fell into place, favoring Shias and leading to problems for Sunnis (including high unemployment) that led on to the creation of ISIS. If similar economic and political problems are not dealt with, wiping out this iteration of ISIS could lead to another version of it. I also have the impression the potential number of these dissatisfied, as potential recruits, could number in many millions (not sure how many). I don't intend to take a position favoring Sunnis, but am trying to understand the complexity of the grievances of whomever. As part of this, my understanding is that many members of ISIS are not head-chopping maniacs but joined as ISIS was the only available opposing force.

    On your question why is the US so against the Shias, my impression is they haven't been against the Shias in Iraq, while simultaneously (and shortsightedly) exercising no influence on fair governance of Iraq following the 03 invasion, and this favoritism favored the Shias there and stirred Sunni resistance. But, I'm thinking, the animosity toward Shias elsewhere is related to alignments in the region, toward dominating the entire region, including taking down Syria and Iran. So it's not so much animosity toward Shias per se as it is to regime change uncooperative rulers, whether in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, with their Shia populations (and lately of course throw in Russia). At stake is pipelines of various sorts, and water rights, and overall in terms of globalism and full spectrum dominance taking over the entire middle east region.

    I welcome being straightened out on where I'm correct or too simplistic. Thanks again.

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    Meant to say INcorrect or too simplistic!

    LJ , March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    The politics of divide and conquer can create strange bedfellows. There is deep routed historical enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites to begin with. Search Twelver. The US has allies and enemies, Bottom line, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and Israel has a lot of political power through it's representatives in the USA especially but also in Britain and France. The Iranians were our friends too after the USA overthrow their Democratic Government in 1953 and installed the Shah and the CIA set up ZAVAK to protect him. It worked until he got weak. . Iran's enmity with the USA and Israel is well supported by facts . So is Hezbollah's enmity as is the enmity of Palestinians living in camps in stateless exile in Lebanon and elsewhere. . We don't necessarily hate Shias. It's policy. A fun fact to know and tell is that the Saudis pump oil from under the feet of the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. who have live near the Persian Gulf since they were Persians and Zoroastrians. Also The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain courtesy of a treaty with the Sunni Rulers of the 90% Shiite nation. Yemen in the same story. Policy is a reason why during the Bush years the USA began referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. So too, When I was young Yemen was not unified. It will never be. Houthis are being oppressed in a genocidal manner right now with US backing because House of Saud sits on the Thrown of Damocles . That is why the King of Saudi Arabia is on a worldwide tour shaking hands with Xi in China yesterday. etc.,,,, ad nauseum

    Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    I wouldn't argue with any of you who are commenting here on this thread, because I agree with all of you. I would like to point out that when Iraq fell the Shia (Shiites) became the popular ruling segment of Iraq, and then came General David Petraeus. The Sunni Awakening has had profound ramifications on what we are up against now, if we should be up against anything at all since most of what we are dealing with is U.S. inspired. The ultimate goal was to descale Iraq away from Iranian influence, and this social engineering by the U.S. could not have been a bigger mistake than what it's turned out to be. Now we are turning Yemen into our new Cambodia, and this will also turn out to be an even bigger mistake unless better minds prevail inside of our White House (if the Oval Office even has the deciding decision on this). Take a look at a map and see where Iran is, and then see where we are positioning ourselves. My thoughts are that Iran is the final goal, and until Iran is brought down, done of us will get a good nights sleep hoping to wake up to a peaceful world. Also don't take that last sentence of mine to be an endorsement to attack Iran. I am more than happy to let Iran be Iran.

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/waking-up-to-the-truth-about-the-sunni-awakening/

    If we wish to end war, then let's quit fighting them!

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    I agree Iran is the real target. The Afghan and Iraq wars were less against Al-Qaeda, since there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but more against Iran. George Bush wanted to establish bases around Iran. In addition to these two countries, he wanted to establish one more in Turkmenistan. US already had a base in Turkey. Turkmenistan refused to allow any US base. Turkey refused the use of Turkish base to launch an attack on Iran. US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the attack on Iran never came. Mind you, the largest US base in Iraq is near the Iran border.

    The dismantling of the Iraqi army wasn't the only thing Paul Bremer did wrong. He gave veto power to the minority Kurds and Sunnis. That is the reason for the non-functional Iraqi government. Nothing gets done. The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation and with the help of US are consolidating their territorial position. Saudi Arabia doesn't want another Shia government as its neighbor and so keeps the sectarian war going adding to the instability of the government.

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    I keep trying to post a link to The Saker for Feb 7 this year, and it keeps disappearing. Easy to find, however. His analysis on what war with Iran would mean is excellent. "US vs Iran a war of apples vs. oranges."

    LJ , March 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    Pence seems to be on board already as are McCain and Graham.I agree we can't can't on the Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer's Liberal wing of the Democrats here. Maybe the Trump's Generals will save us? Yeah right. The House of Representatives ? Not likely . Strange days indeed .,

    CitizenOne , March 15, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    I was not aware of the Kagan's role and I thank you for doing the due diligence on outlining how this family is intertwined with recent misadventures. But also it is kind of picking at Nits. This is a smallish operation. It does not compare to the decades long operation of Cheney to privatize the DOD, teach his corporate buddies a Halliburton how to cash in, dream of further cashing in himself with PNAC and the Carlyle Group, gin up a war, destabilize the middle east and get a pass from the media. Cheney and Bush ignored all of the warnings from the FBI and the CIA that Saudi terrorists were planning an attack which would instantly make the Carlyle Group the wealthiest private equity firm on the planet.

    I agree it is all planned. Planned well in advance. The goal is to become rich by creating a war or wars.

    I realize it is aimed at a microscopic part of the picture but fails to connect the dots of Kagan and PNAC and 9/11. Cheney's own admission that short of "A New Pearl Harbor" Americans would not likely go along with his dreams of launching preemptive wars reveal a naked desire to become rich along with his buddies over at the Carlyle Group which snatched up defense stocks when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR was disintegrating. While the rest of the World was celebrating the possibility of future peace with Russia, The PNAC folks were buying up stock in the defense industry and were dreaming of a war. which they created by ignoring all of the signs that 9/11 was underway. I get that they felt some future democratic branch of the government would botch an opportunity to create a fake enemy in Iraq and would fail to launch a war.

    But the facts are the whole thing was avoidable and was pushed with a mountain of lies which the major media simply regurgitated leading us to war.

    It doesn't end there. While we are now busy banning millions of people from coming to America because they might be terrorists, the real terrorists from abroad and here at home with Islamic ties were all known by the authorities. Yet they did nothing to stop them and instead have used their failures as excuses to create chaos which they hope will lead to more violence.

    How does a guy who went to the FBI and confessed was delusional and heard voices in his head trying to convert him to an ISIS terrorist then be allowed to board an airplane with a gun?

    How was the underpants bomber allowed on a plane when his parents called the US Consulate to inform US officials that their son was getting on that plane with a bomb. Yet we let this person on a plane. Why has the media never investigated this failure?

    It is failure after failure with gross incompetence from federal authorities charged with our security that has led to terrorist acts and not the failure to keep millions of people from traveling here.

    The Boston Marathon bombers were singled out to US intelligence agencies by none other than the Russians that they were terrorists but we let them in. No investigation of that but banning entire nations is an option we have now tried twice. What about the failure of intelligence to flag two people who were singled out as terrorists?

    There is a much bigger story here.

    The US government and intelligence agencies have obviously allowed terrorist attacks to happen. This has happened time and time again and yet the media focuses on the terrorists time and time again while ignoring and under reporting the backstory of how we just let it happen.

    It can be rationalized by a reasoned argument that we must allow some attacks to focus our efforts on thwarting even bigger attacks like nuclear attacks but there has been no action by the government to actually improve security so what is the point.

    The meaningless act of taking ones shoes off at an airport is only not copied by forcing us to all strip down to our underpants based on a similar event to the shoe bomber because people would not tolerate being forced to take off all their clothes.

    Now since an FAA test of airport security revealed that guns were not detected 95% of the time we are all preparing for pat downs. Nobody is examining the reason that 95% of the time somebody with a gun in their baggage gets through security which is supposedly equipped with machines that can spot guns. Where is the investigation of the machines since they fail so often?

    There are all sorts of similar stories which all conclude that we are faced with a rational reason that our government needs to allow some terrorist action to happen which in turn turns our state increasingly toward a militaristic police state.

    What I have a problem with is that we are more likely to be attacked by known terrorists and that nobody seems to be concerned with. I guess that allowing terrorist attacks provides the political concurrence to launch trillion dollar wars against other nations all for profit and put spy cupcakes in our refrigerators. Watch out! There's a camera just below the icing on the cupcake! Don't eat it!

    We can't just ignore home grown terrorists like the shooters in California who, while on a watch list, were allowed to purchase weapons or the crazy guy who told FBI ISIS was inside his head to board an airplane with a gun and do nothing to investigate these intelligence failures and instead use them to seek Apple to grant access to all our information on smartphones and order travel bans for millions of people while justifying turning our TVs into Big Brother.

    We can't ignore the obvious windfalls of Cheney and his pals at the Carlyle group to grow rich by allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people.

    If we are going to spill blood in preparation for war, then we need to make sure we are doing everything in our power to prevent it and especially not to seek to become rich from it. We also need to protect our privacy.

    So now it comes down to making Russia the new enemy. We have to reinvent an old enemy to justify further reasons for keeping America strong. But we spend ten times the money on our National Defense than the Russians do. Where does that line up with weakness? How do we just invent some myth that there are liberators working abroad in Ukraine and Syria to justify military spending just like we invented Vietnam? Has Vietnam attacked us recently? I think not. Is Syria a serious player in the international terrorism game? I think not.

    Here is a suggestion. Apply all that money used to create advanced defensive capability into an industry aimed at real security.

    Destabilizing the whole World to get rich is a bad idea. Getting rich by providing the means of nonmilitary industry aimed at enhancing security is a good idea. Easy money is a crime. Earning it the hard way is an honest living.

    Time for the easy money folks to be sidelined and for the people interested in long term survival to hold power.

    Bruce Walker , March 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

    Anyone in the USA who can say they are not aware of the Kagan clan no nothing and should not be writing such a long comment. Go back to sleep.

    CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    That would be spelled: knows nothing
    Perhaps you should wake up, learn to spell, and spend more than a lazy moment trolling me. If you have something intelligent to say we are all waiting with baited breath.

    CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    Well I guess I have to forgive Bruce Walker for not being a very good speller.

    That would be : bated breath.

    My bad.

    geoff , March 15, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    kagans never fail to excite. a package of madness on my monitor and how the hell did they get to screw things up. oh!! scuse me yes, hillary whatsaname!!!

    Brad N , March 15, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    The picture painted here is actually rather dismal when one considers the long term consequences of having such nonsense going on. Trump as possible savior from a war with Russia is a really hard pill to swallow. Very hard indeed, it is worth repeating. I have no confidence in his consistency at all. As for this article, I wish I could find fault with the analysis presented here. Sadly, I cannot.

    Chris Jonsson , March 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm

    War, Inc. A family owned and operated corporation.

    TheSkepticalCynic , March 15, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    Fuck the Kagans

    LJ , March 15, 2017 at 10:43 pm

    But they might multiply!

    Fran Macadam , March 15, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    "Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,"

    I greatly appreciate Mr. Parry's reporting and insights. However, I believe that the determination of fitness for the Presidency is determined by the voters and democracy determines who is qualified.

    Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:35 am

    If only we had a democracy, Fran. But in fact elections and mass media are controlled by money, and our Constitution has no protection of these tools of democracy from money power, because there were no businesses then larger than plantations and small ships that would be small businesses today. We do not have a democracy now.

    Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm

    On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

    This quote suggests it is time to send a team of men with a strait-jacket into the New York Times to cart this nutcase off to the loony bin. Come to think of it, maybe they should take several strait-jackets with them and clean out the editorial staff.

    Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    It's absolutely asinine isn't it?! I'll have to take a look, but I'll bet there wasn't a snicker or even a raised eyebrow when Friedman (the oh-so-serious-in-the-know hushed-toned Friedman who reveled in promoting the Iraq killing field) spittled his brain drool. He really should be referred. At the very least, he should have been called out for his absurdity before being excused at the next commercial break.

    It's amazing how people like Kagan & Friedman can straight-face their farcical musings about Russian "interference". It's funny too how they can go on about the integrity and reliability of democratic processes when it is precisely the compromise of such that Wikileaks revealed. As noted by Mr. Parry:

    " by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news."

    So much for real news in this country. And my God Mr. Kagan, Trump doesn't necessarily have faith in the findings or motives of the "intelligence community". I wonder why.

    I hope the Kagans find their karma. Oh, and that weasel Friedman too.

    Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:48 pm

    Given the wars the Kagans have helped promote and the consequences of these wars, surely there is some crime they could be charged with.

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm

    We wish.

    F. G. Sanford , March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm

    The desperation with which neocons are baiting for a new Cold War suggests that there is something much bigger than "election hacking" that needs covering up. Profit motives aside, the cost-benefit ratio looks more like a ploy to stay out of jail. Not that anyone in the "deep state" ever faces penalties for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but it must be a nagging thought to anyone familiar with Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg.

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 12:11 am

    Institute for the Study of War, that says it all! I remember when Dennis Kucinich as Representative from Ohio introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace. It didn't go very far.

    I also did not know about Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?

    Thanks for a good warning, Robert Parry. These people must dream of war at night. I hope Trump and Tillerson are wary of them.

    Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:11 am

    "How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?"

    Yes and how many more Devos and Princes can we afford as well. Or how many Bushes, Clintons or Trumps!

    Sr. Gibbonk , March 16, 2017 at 1:10 am

    Ah yes, The Project for a New American Century manifesto: primary authors Robert Kagan and William Kristol on behalf of the neocon cabal and the European colonial Zionist project. Another demonstration that narrow, selfish interests, greed and the thirst for power drive this world. And all the while there are two great storms brewing on the horizon, each capable of driving our's and the majority of this earth's species to extinction. One, perhaps the most imminent, is the very real possibility of nuclear annihilation which is being spearheaded by the reckless ideologues and predatory capitalist deep state demagogues in their quest for Full Spectrum Dominance of global affairs. Even if the dire specter of nuclear holocaust is somehow avoided the global corporate world's avaricious, boundless appetite for short term profits, especially through fossil fuel extraction, will make the worst predictions of climate change inevitable: ecological collapse and along with it the collapse not only of nation states but of the human capacity to reason. How will the great nuclear powers, flailing like dinosaurs during the Permian-Triassic extinction - also known as The Great Dying - not then Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds?

    Stygg , March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    FWIW, dinosaurs did not yet exist by the end of the Permian.

    Eric Downey , March 16, 2017 at 3:15 am

    Robert Parry thank you, and please continue your hard work. Our best hope for peace lies with Trump, Bannon, Tillerson and the Generals. It sounds crazy (and it is!) but they are well suited because they are aligned with a good chunk of the vocal electorate. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) proposed a bill Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and it has a companion in the Senate, sponsored by Rand Paul:
    https://www.mintpressnews.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-calling-congress-stop-funding-isis-al-qaeda/225868/

    This is an informed electorate taking action. Parry is doing his job by informing us. Our job is to support H.R.608 and S.532.

    Gary , March 16, 2017 at 5:05 am

    There are so many in Washington who deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity that it is difficult to know where one would start. Actually, come to think of it, the Kagan family would be a great place to start! Then of course we'd have to move on to Bill and Hillary and another highly deserving couple Samantha Powers and hubby Cass Sustien of "cognitive infiltration" fame. Apparently psychopaths do find each other quite attractive, though who knows how many homicidal fantasies these particular spouses might actually harbor toward each other??

    Seema Gillani , March 16, 2017 at 7:00 am

    Trump has been neutralised to become a puppet of deep state. The world should expect the war business as usual.

    Geoffrey de Galles , March 16, 2017 at 7:44 am

    If I were the Kagans with as loaded an agenda as they share in the worldwide assertion of American exceptionalism, then I would consider the POTUS's Achilles heel to be Jared Kushner and his wife; and, in a more or less gentle and subtle way, would endeavour first to establish a relationship with them as a means of gradually bringing the pater familias around to my bellicose and imperialistic way of thinking. Myself, I consider the Kagans (among many others) to be the true enemy of the people. But that's my concern - viz., with trying to anticipate and out-think the enemy. So best watch out in that direction.

    fudmier , March 16, 2017 at 8:00 am

    The problem here is lack of ideal structure to for the concerned to become involved with
    No one has outlined the ideal America as seen from the point of everyday Americans..
    these 340,000,000 millions have no idea what to be for and against because they have
    no structure and no purpose .. seems to me developing that structure (culture, education,
    health care, voting rights, financial security, infra structure, and the like).
    Developing the structure is a first step to mounting the support Trump needs to make the right decisions..
    Trump himself lacks that structure.. Once the structure becomes a household word everyone knows the
    right decision they might agree to disagree on its implementation but the result intended is in plain view.

    Bryan Hemming , March 16, 2017 at 8:17 am

    Why would the Russians need to undermine democracy in the United States when the Democratic and Republican party machines are doing such a marvellous job of it by themselves?

    Del Spurlock , March 16, 2017 at 8:51 am

    EXCEPTIONAL

    Donald Kagan
    Spawned a tribe
    Of tinhorn
    Warriors

    Practice war he
    Said to them
    Make men
    Sacrifice
    Their reason and
    Their rectitude
    Their dreams of paradise.

    Make them fear
    The empty space
    Filled with conjured devils
    Make them sacrifice their young
    To save god's holy settlers.

    Make Obama toe their line
    Add John Lewis too
    Watch Black leaders
    Act so dumb
    And crap on King to Boot.

    Roberto , March 16, 2017 at 9:01 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXspsfoPX50

    Roberto , March 16, 2017 at 8:57 am

    The title should be, "How To Turn Unemployment Into A Great Day At The Gallows."

    Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

    Aren't there laws that the Kagan family are breaking? Seems to me we should start with them and arrest them for the lies that took the Bush regime into the Middle East wars and definitely for the Ukraine coup. They are financing and spreading terrorism therefore the money and the financiers behind these war think tanks are also guilty. This goes all the way to the Koch Brothers and they should be arrested as well! Why are we, the peace crusaders, on the defensive. We need to go on the offensive. Enough already!

    Dan Kuhn , March 16, 2017 at 10:17 am

    As P T barnum said " Theres a sucker born every minute". The real question is ; Are the American people going to get suckered into a war with Russia and or China? Given their past record of seriously questioning the propaganda put out by the Kagans et all i am not too hopeful over this present push to what will be a catastrophic war.

    LJ , March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    It's all talk. We can't beat the Taliban or the Viet Cong or the Mexican and Central American drug Gangs on the ground if it comes to that. Russia? China? That's funny. This is to justify perpetuation of the status quo in this nation. We the People can't be allowed to pick up our heads and gaze at reality. We need to be preoccupied with the BS. Political Correctness has done it's job now we have to spend a bunch of money on imaginary threats so billionaires and bankers can get richer and we can all pretend that they matter and that this is fair and justified and Democracy in action , We need idiotic Generals in charge and tough talking politicians too. Obfuscation, whatever word or combination of words you like . It's fascistic crap. We the People didn't want more war in Syria under Obama . Nothing has changed , next time it won't matter if 90% of calls to Congressional offices are against a war. This is what Eisenhower said would happen back in 1958 though the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Financial Cyber Intelligence Complex.

    exiled off mainstreet , March 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

    Rather than being extolled and given mainstream platforms to exercise their baleful interests, the Kagans should face some sort of legal accountability as professional war criminals.

    Stiv , March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Jesus Christ. Yea yea yea. Same old same old. In searching for a sign of light after the elections, the best I was able to do is " well at least Nuland won't be Secretary of State". But to go on and on and on

    Isn't there more important stuff going on? How about the "Hard diplomacy" Trumpistas are spouting about?

    It's been funny .in a sick way to see Trump and administration figures using the same language as Parry and his hangers on. "McCarthyism", "Deep State" are used every other paragraph.

    It's been noted a marked shift towards the Trump administration talking points in commentary here at Consortium "news". Even the "fake news" debacle is furthered here.

    And not in the right direction.

    My question .When does the news start, Robert?

    D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    You know it's possible you're so angry you're not really paying attention. It you think there's been a "marked shift towards Trump administration talking points in commentary here" you're not really reading what's here, just swiftly glancing and stamping your foot with irritation. Why don't you provide a little news yourself instead of your same old same old bitching all the time?

    MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    Here is that link to Saker's article:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/u-s-against-iran-a-war-of-apples-vs-oranges/

    Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:41 pm

    So your grasp of what has "importance" is not aligned with CN and the thrust of its commentary. I think you've made that clear on several ad nauseam occasions.
    I should think that if this site was about reiterating Trump Administration talking points, we'd have the "hard diplomacy" thing covered by now. If you are concerned about what Mr. Parry publishes, submit articles on what you think is important. If you are concerned about the level or direction of commentary here, contribute with something substantive.

    LJ , March 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm

    Well, the Trump team players even Donald himself need to defend themselves for their own reasons. I think most commenters here are a little worried and rightly so for their own reasons, I personally do not like the vilification of all things Russian and the obvious McCarthy like tactics that have been going on calling for a witch hunt, a special prosecutor on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Democrats aren't calling out for justice they want to geld Trump but Pense would be even worse. Maybe it's time tobelieve in Democracy at some level.

    John , March 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    The Kagans are simply supplying a strategy to further a growing agenda ..The average USA citizen's strategy is complacency and their agenda is simply to do nothing ..This is why the 1% rule over the 99% ..

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    Tony Cartaluccu's article on The Deep State is excellent, thank you, Joe. The multipolar world he speaks of, which Putin often refers to, is what the neocon imperialists such as the Kagans don't want, but they're getting it, anyway. Since the days of the Iraq War, many great alternative journalists, such as this website, have exposed and continue to expose the facts behind deep state propaganda so these folks can't dominate as they used to. The USA doesn't look so good to a lot of nations after the disasters created by the regime change proxy wars. Despite the badmouthing of Putin and Russia in the US, many other countries aren't signing on to that attitude, from what I've read. I have just read that China wants to help rebuild Syria, since Syria is an important geographic route on their One Belt, One Road project. If the US can't recognize it can't remain top dog forever and that it's a multipolar world, it might find itself isolated.

    Dag , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    The Kagans should be in prison for all the crimes they've enabled, all the lives they've destroyed.

    Airman Sparky , March 16, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    Robert Parry & Glenn Greenwald are at the top of my short list of real-life, courageous, truth-telling heroes but, for today, Kiza reigns supreme with her tour de force:"Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours, as Pepé Le Pew likes to say."
    Massive props, Zika, for referencing Pepe, HRC, & neocons in a single sentence

    Ted , March 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    OK, I get it about the Kagans, but I still don't trust Putin.

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    So then, Ted, why don't you move to Russia so that you can do an objective evaluation of the country and under Putin? Of course, Russian is not an easy language to learn! It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland!

    Ted , March 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    Hmm that's a response I would expect at TheBlaze – knee-jerk and black-and-white. Perhaps I should learn Russian. Are you offering to teach me, comrade?

    J'hon Doe II , March 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    UK/US is the Last Empire and Trump is an 'angel-of-death'.
    Nothing good can or will from his spurious administration .

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/11/09/20161111_trump1.jpg

    Brad Isherwood , March 16, 2017 at 4:39 pm

    The PNAC psychopaths did their part in 911. The conquer 7 Nations in 5 years for Israel has been delayed.

    The MIC has Al qeada,ISIS. ..even Muslim Brotherhood, ..all over the place, to give the MIC years and years. ..even another decade or more war pleasuring. Trump kicked huge gift to the Military. ..before the Ides of March arrived.

    The Saudi/Qatar block have invested multi millions in regime change Assad. The trained Mercs forces, logistics, weapons. posture against Iran, and the dream of Pipelines.

    Erdogan the Mad Caliph is the receiver of the Terrorists from Saudi or Libya and other, the reciever of the pipelines.
    Israel will not give back the Golan .wants Hezbollah gone from near its Safe Zone.

    Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel "

    US boots going back into Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, going into Syria, media bleating about US needs go back to Libya and fix that mess.

    Trump is where on his supposed non intervention promises? The John McCain and Deep State media rush against Russia with lies like WMD Iraq. Is this Deja Vu

    Jessica K , March 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    Ted, my comment was sarcastic because you did not back up your opinion with any facts. The situation is getting very sticky with now Canada's Foreign Minister getting into the smearfest. Freeland just pulled out the Crimean Tatars as being victims of Russian aggression, and I, knowing nothing about the issue, had to start digging, which began with US articles supporting brutalization by Russia, some from 2016. Digging out further are some articles that this is not the case, Tatars supported going with Russia as Crimeans voted. All which supports that propaganda is rife, is there a free press anymore, and the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. And my position is that some politicians are willing to take us to extinction to get their way, while we have a planet with many problems we should be addressing.

    [Mar 17, 2017] The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency. ..."
    "... "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. ..."
    "... "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks. ..."
    "... the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." ..."
    "... Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. ..."
    "... It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. ..."
    "... As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Mar 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more "regime change" wars, reports Robert Parry.

    The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.

    Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump.

    In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as "Russia's accomplices after the fact" by not investigating more aggressively.

    Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.

    Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington's world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.

    Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose "liberal interventionism" matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars.

    There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.

    Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting "regime change" back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money.

    A Family Business

    As I noted two years ago in an article entitled " A Family Business of Perpetual War ": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

    "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

    "Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert's brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War."

    But things didn't quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to Trump.

    After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.

    With Trump in the White House, Official Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment was down but far from out. The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland's fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia. As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump's team to rig the U.S. election.

    New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia's alleged "meddling" to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda's 9/11 terror attacks.

    On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

    So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert themselves.

    Baiting Republicans

    Robert Kagan took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article and its headline, "Running interference for Russia."

    Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)

    Kagan wrote: "It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party's leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country's political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing."

    Kagan then reprised Official Washington's groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims from President Obama's outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had "hacked" Democratic emails and released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.

    Though Obama's intelligence officials offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office.

    Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama's appointees, Kagan judged that "given the significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling" and justified "a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation."

    But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.

    He declared: "The most important question concerns Russia's ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States' electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.

    "Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations."

    A Different Reality

    As alarmist as Kagan's op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election's outcome.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

    Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.

    Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

    In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news.

    A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details about Trump's tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen's tax returns was somehow a threat to American democracy.

    The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking the White House. I agree, but doesn't it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton's nomination, about the contents of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing to the Clinton Foundation?

    Yet, because Obama's political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community "assess" that Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.

    More Loose Talk

    But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S. democracy. He asserted as "fact" – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is "interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy's recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions."

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

    There's been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the "post-truth" era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.

    But it's clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to "counter" what is deemed "Russian propaganda."

    Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing:

    "But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party's current leader, the president, questions the intelligence community's findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.

    "Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.

    "The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party's leadership, both in the White House and Congress.

    "When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russia's accomplices after the fact."

    Lying with the Neocons

    Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons' long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq.

    But the neocons have long lusted for "regime change" in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama's arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State's "capital" of Raqqa.

    In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern Syria:

    "American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war.

    "The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of a secure base inside Syria. President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming America's approach to it."

    A New Scheme on Syria

    In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings to entice the U.S. military into a "regime change" project in Syria.

    The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military.

    But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.

    Putin's interference in thwarting the neocons' dream of a Syrian "regime change" war moved Putin to the top of their enemies' list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman deemed "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.

    It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria "Toria" Nuland to oversee the "regime change" in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how "to glue" or "to midwife" a change in Ukraine's elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

    Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as "legitimate."

    But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion."

    So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a "regime change" in Syria.

    All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton, a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.

    Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda.

    It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes.

    As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Mar 17, 2017] Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : , March 16, 2017 at 05:47 AM
    https://www.unescwa.org/publications/israeli-practices-palestinian-people-apartheid-occupation

    2017

    Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid: Palestine and the Israeli Occupation
    By United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

    This report examines, based on key instruments of international law, whether Israel has established an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Having established that the crime of apartheid has universal application, that the question of the status of the Palestinians as a people is settled in law, and that the crime of apartheid should be considered at the level of the State, the report sets out to demonstrate how Israel has imposed such a system on the Palestinians in order to maintain the domination of one racial group over others.

    A history of war, annexation and expulsions, as well as a series of practices, has left the Palestinian people fragmented into four distinct population groups, three of them (citizens of Israel, residents of East Jerusalem and the populace under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza) living under direct Israeli rule and the remainder, refugees and involuntary exiles, living beyond. This fragmentation, coupled with the application of discrete bodies of law to those groups, lie at the heart of the apartheid regime. They serve to enfeeble opposition to it and to veil its very existence. This report concludes, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, and urges swift action to oppose and end it. *

    * https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.unescwa.org/files/publications/files/israeli-practices-palestinian-people-apartheid-occupation-english.pdf

    EMichael -> anne... , March 16, 2017 at 07:12 AM
    Oh, the irony. The usual set of posts on how great China is, followed by an attack on Israelis for apartheid(justified I think). Meanwhile, in Tibet..............
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , March 16, 2017 at 09:08 AM
    "The usual set of posts on how great China is, followed by an attack on Israelis for apartheid(justified I think)."

    The difference is that we give billions in military aid to Israel and are mucking about the Middle East on their behalf, to keep the peace ostensibly and to keep the oil flowing. But I agree Tibet is a crime and John Oliver gave a good deep dive on it recently. The abuse of civil liberties in occupied Tibet is ranked worse than in North Korea.

    One can be objective about America's rivals just as one can be objective about America's allies. You don't have to spin against our enemies and for our allies, just as it's folly to spin for Democrats and for Republicans.

    Be objective it will serve you better.

    anne -> anne... , March 16, 2017 at 07:23 AM
    https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.unescwa.org/files/publications/files/israeli-practices-palestinian-people-apartheid-occupation-english.pdf

    2017

    Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid: Palestine and the Israeli Occupation
    By United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

    Executive Summary

    This report concludes that Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude that available evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in instruments of international law.

    The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights law and principles that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies, including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid Convention):

    The term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.

    Although the term "apartheid" was originally associated with the specific instance of South Africa, it now represents a species of crime against humanity under customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to which:

    "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

    Against that background, this report reflects the expert consensus that the prohibition of apartheid is universally applicable and was not rendered moot by the collapse of apartheid in South Africa and South West Africa (Namibia).

    The legal approach to the matter of apartheid adopted by this report should not be confused with usage of the term in popular discourse as an expression of opprobrium. Seeing apartheid as discrete acts and practices (such as the "apartheid wall"), a phenomenon generated by anonymous structural conditions like capitalism ("economic apartheid"), or private social behaviour on the part of certain racial groups towards others (social racism) may have its place in certain contexts. However, this report anchors its definition of apartheid in international law, which carries with it responsibilities for States, as specified in international instruments.

    The choice of evidence is guided by the Apartheid Convention, which sets forth that the crime of apartheid consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire the status of crimes against humanity only if they intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination. The Rome Statute specifies in its definition the presence of an "institutionalized regime" serving the "intention" of racial domination. Since "purpose" and "intention" lie at the core of both definitions, this report examines factors ostensibly separate from the Palestinian dimension - especially, the doctrine of Jewish statehood as expressed in law and the design of Israeli State institutions - to establish beyond doubt the presence of such a core purpose.

    That the Israeli regime is designed for this core purpose was found to be evident in the body of laws, only some of which are discussed in the report for reasons of scope. One prominent example is land policy. The Israeli Basic Law (Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of Israel, the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund shall not be transferred in any manner, placing its management permanently under their authority. The State Property Law of 1951 provides for the reversion of property (including land) to the State in any area "in which the law of the State of Israel applies". The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept of "public purpose" as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be changed by Knesset vote, but the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits any political party from challenging that public purpose. Effectively, Israeli law renders opposition to racial domination illegal....

    [Mar 16, 2017] Assange Claims Hillary, Intel Officials Quietly Pushing A Pence Takeover

    Mar 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as "the Deep State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan...

    Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    Adding that...

    Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    As The Daily Caller notes, Assange's claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening...

    By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence pays

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    As we concluded previously, if Trump doesn't adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.

    No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia – a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.

    Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The firs t path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops , who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

    froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:17 PM

    Groan... Start charging people for sedition already. Although Sessions cleaning house was a good start, we will see where this goes.

    InTheLandOfTheBlind -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:17 PM

    Assange gets the no shit sherlock award. Hang the traitors

    BullyBearish -> InTheLandOfTheBlind , Mar 14, 2017 12:21 PM

    NOTHING worse than a zionist-enabling evangelical christian neocon...they are the pawns that keep this $hitshow going...

    Logan 5 -> wildbad , Mar 14, 2017 1:41 PM

    "color me VERY doubtful on this scenario playing out"

    Not so fast...

    Unless you haven't noticed, Trump has surrounded himself with Jared Kushner & Goldman types...

    Let's face it, nobody around here wanted HRC to win, but they backed Trump more on a ANYTHING BUT HILLARY notion, plus, a [DRAIN THE SWAMP = HOPE & CHANGE] ideaology.

    Trump is, and always has been, a 'narcissist' in his good moments... It's hard for me to believe he even wants this job... Many of his appointments have been suspect (& the good ones like Flynn have been shown the door)... It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trump was just 'satisfied that he won' which amounts to a checked box on his personal bucket list.

    I would not be surprised AT ALL to see this scenario have some success... JUNK me all you want... The end result would be that this country is, most truly, fucked beyond all possible return...

    If this were to end up happening, without a resultant uprising & civil war... Then we're truly repeating what Solzhenitsyn warned against.

    chubbar -> NidStyles , Mar 14, 2017 2:43 PM

    Here is another crooked FBI story that is just breaking. If true, Trump needs to clean that outhouse as well!!!!

    http://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbis-own-political-terror-plot-deputy-director-and-fbi-brass-secretly-conspired-to-wage-coup-against-flynn-trump-2/

    "Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.

    McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered few did not.

    This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present."..........

    froze25 -> Pinto Currency , Mar 14, 2017 12:31 PM

    I believe you are right and the Military is behind Trump, the military does have a intelligence branch that rivals the CIA my guess is that we are seeing a battle between the Military and the CIA

    Jayda1850 -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:36 PM

    Then why would Trump give the CIA the power to commit drone strikes, something that was only supposed to be done by the military?

    froze25 -> Jayda1850 , Mar 14, 2017 12:41 PM

    They already had the power, Obama gave it to them. My guess is they came to him, said we have a target of opportunity Trump probably looked to his advisers in his cabinet and they agreed that it should be done and then he said, "do it". My guess is that the CIA is big enough that the people that do the Drone strikes aren't the same agents that are undermining him. Probably not even in the same branch or division.

    Jayda1850 -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:57 PM

    They didn't have the power, Obama was the one who curtailed it. They could pick targets, but the military were the ones who pulled the trigger. Trump handed over the kill order to the CIA

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/323808-trump-gives-cia-power-to-launch...

    [Mar 16, 2017] A Soft Coup, or Preserving Our Democracy by Philip Giraldi

    A rare even-handed analysis of Russian leaks and Anti-Trump campaign in mass media. Intelligence agencies became political actors, like is typical for color revolution. The only difference is that now they are acting is concert with neoliberal media against their own elected administration.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on ..."
    "... the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. ..."
    "... The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election. ..."
    "... Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. ..."
    "... It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades. ..."
    "... In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House. ..."
    "... Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it. ..."
    "... Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped." ..."
    "... The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
    "... President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms. ..."
    "... Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place. ..."
    "... Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government." ..."
    "... Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, ..."
    "... The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties. ..."
    "... Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives. ..."
    "... The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration. ..."
    "... The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe. ..."
    "... Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active. ..."
    "... The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. ..."
    "... It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, ..."
    "... I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive. ..."
    "... If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020. ..."
    Mar 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    ... ... ...

    Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.

    • One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate" allegations have been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.

      It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election.

    • The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained. Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.

    This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:

    The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI developed an interest in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have "any nefarious purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.

    The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also reporting that, "For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations," which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.

    In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.

    Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades.

    At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."

    In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.

    Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it.

    Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower "to my knowledge" because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."

    The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.

    President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.

    After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the 35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made public.

    Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.

    Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."

    Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn was eventually forced to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA, FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.

    One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited "four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.

    The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.

    Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives.

    The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.

    The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.

    The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter, frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.

    If one were to come up with a summary of what the government might or might not have been doing over the past nine months concerning Trump and the Russians it would go something like this: FBI investigators looking for criminal activity connected to the Trump Tower server found nothing and then might have sought and eventually obtained a FISA issued warrant permitting them to keep looking on national security grounds. If that is so, the government could have been using the high-tech surveillance capabilities of the federal intelligence services to monitor the activity of an opposition political candidate. Additional information was undoubtedly collected on Trump and his associates' dealings with Russia using federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, and NSA guidelines were changed shortly before the inauguration so that much of the information thus obtained, normally highly restricted, could then be disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to other government agencies. This virtually guaranteed that it could not be deleted or hidden while also insuring that at least some of it would be leaked to the media.

    The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. Whether there is any intention to either delegitimize or bring down the Trump White House is, of course, unknowable unless you had the good fortune to be in the Oval Office when such options were possibly being discussed.

    It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, at least insofar as the public has been allowed to see the evidence. Someone, widely presumed but not demonstrated to be in some way associated with the Russian government, hacked into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The factual information was then passed to WikiLeaks, which denies that it came from a Russian source, and was gradually released starting in July. There has been a presumption that Moscow was either trying to influence the outcome of the election in support of Donald Trump or that it was trying to somehow subvert American democracy, but no unimpeachable evidence has as of yet been produced to support either hypothesis. The two senior Trump officials – Flynn and Sessions – who have been under the gun have not been pummeled because they did anything wrong vis-ŕ-vis the Russians -they did not - but because they have been accused of lying.

    So, whether there is some kind of coup in progress ultimately depends on your perspective and what you are willing to believe to be true. I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive.

    And the possibility of impeachment is also not far off, as Trump is confronted by a hostile Democratic Party and numerous dissidents within the GOP ranks. But if nothing comes of it all beyond an extremely rough transition, the whole business might just be regarded as a particularly nasty bit of new style politics. If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Mar 14, 2017] All Roads Lead Back to Brennan (wiretapping of Trump)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
    "... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
    "... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
    "... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
    "... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
    Mar 14, 2017 | freerepublic.com
    From american spectator

    George Neumayr
    Posted on ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017‎ ‎4‎:‎42‎:‎04‎ ‎PM by RoosterRedux

    It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld.

    For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.

    Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?

    Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":

    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.
    Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation, according to the BBC story:

    (Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

    To: RoosterRedux

    As the author points out, here is the key:

    The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.

    Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!

    gibsonguy ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017‎ ‎5‎:‎48‎:‎56‎ ‎PM

    To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.

    Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.

    I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they can go back for years and pull out the data.

    Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.

    We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.

    [Mar 14, 2017] Trump tweeted earlier this month that President Barack Obama had ordered him to be wiretapped

    Vault 7 revelations now shed some light on the possibilities of a muti-step operations to get the court order. The absurdity of the situation is evident: acting POTUS complains about wiretapping by his predecessor who supposedly used one of intelligence agencies (supposedly CIA) for this operation. Being now a Commander in Chief.
    Ray McGovern who probably knows what he is talking about suggested that Obama might be scared of CIA Director Brennan ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGayl9uNW4A actually this is a very interesting interview)
    The following scheme looks plausible: Scapegoat Russians by hacking into DNC servers; create media hysteria about Russians; implicate Trump in connections to Russians; get court order for wiretapping on this ground
    Notable quotes:
    "... Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. ..."
    "... I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch ..."
    "... Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision. ..."
    "... in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ..."
    Mar 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova : March 13, 2017 at 06:20 PM , 2017 at 06:20 PM

    Obama and Brennan

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/17/obama-and-brennan/

    Baker-Mazzetti's opener says it all: " Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. " Nothing could be plainer. As one who remembers well the guilt-by-association days of McCarthyism, I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch , as in its role in drone assassination at facilities in Pakistan, Brennan himself installed as Director after Valiant Service as national security adviser, all despite questions of favoring waterboarding raised in confirmation hearings. From a pool of gung-ho national-security experts on which to draw, the others still making up his First Team of advisers (include generals, admirals, members of think tanks with partly disguised neocon credentials), Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision.

    Obama is not Brennan's puppet, nor the other way. Both are electrified by mutual contact and support. The reporters note friction between the White House and Langley "after the release of the scorching report," Brennan having "irritated advisers by battling Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year." They do not point out Obama did the same, stalling release, suffocating criticism of CIA hard-ball tactics against the committee, of which later; yet they make up for that with, given that this is NYT, an astonishing statement: "But in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ."

    What they don't say is that counterterrorism is part of the larger US position of counterrevolution, issuing in confrontations with Russia and China and regime change wherever American interests are challenged. Nor do they say, the Agency's struggle to balance security and liberty was lost before it had fairly begun, assassination and regime change hardly indicative of liberty, a no-contest battle.

    [Mar 14, 2017] The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election. ..."
    "... A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions. ..."
    "... The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
    www.apnews.com

    "WASHINGTON (AP) - The Latest on President Donald Trump (all times EDT):

    7:10 p.m.

    The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election.

    The committee set Monday as the deadline for getting the information, but the Justice Department says it needs more time.

    The committee now says it wants the information in hand before March 20 when it holds its first public hearing on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions.

    ___

    6:30 p.m.

    The Justice Department is requesting more time to respond to a congressional inquiry into President Donald Trump's unproven assertion that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.

    The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    But spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores says in a statement Monday that the department has asked for more time to "review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine what if any responsive documents may exist."

    [Mar 14, 2017] John Brennan, Obama and the Central Intelligence Agency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same. ..."
    "... According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP] ..."
    "... Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan's turf. ..."
    "... Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | www.pipelinenews.org

    What we must presume has been a behind the scene conflict between politicized elements of America's rather vast intelligence infrastructure [at least 17 discreet agencies, which doesn't take "dark op" players into account] leading up to and now following the November 8 election, has ingloriously boiled over into a public cat fight.

    If not for the subject matter the scene would be reminiscent of the now semi-ancient but nonetheless still hilarious Mad Magazine cartoon series, Spy vs. Spy it's gotten that bad.

    The basic thesis, doggedly argued by the most politicized of the various intelligence agencies' nodes - John Brennan's CIA – is that Vlad Putin's operatives were responsible for the DNC/John Podesta hack which Hillary supporters believe threw the election into the Dem's nightmare scenario, victory by the Blond Barbarian from New York, Donald J. Trump.

    We have touched upon this topic frequently and quite recently for example [see, A Spiteful And Psychopathic Obama Tries To Start World War III , The Anti-Trump Pushback and Obama Unchained ] so readers should be well aware of our high level of skepticism over the claims - primarily by the CIA - that the election was "hacked."

    Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same.

    According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP]

    To some observers the very idea that a government organization with the charter of the CIA would not INHERENTLY be politicized is foolish:

    "Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers." [source, Has the CIA Been Politicized? , Mises Institute]

    So much for background and generalizations, let's turn to the real matter at hand, John Brennan's performance as Obama's lap dog, parroting [highly questionable at best] the Democrat line that Putin put Trump in the Oval Office and is therefore an illegitimate president.

    This line of attack is so common within the modern progressive/Marxist Democrat Party that it would normally have little effect outside the I95 corridor except for the fact that this one has a very visible [and presumed by many to be beyond reproach] and public champion, John O. Brennan and his war-toy, the Central Intelligence Agency.

    We believe for a number of reasons that in his effort to discredit Mr. Trump, Brennan is acting as an intelligence operative doing [a uniquely narcissistic] president's bidding.

    Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan's turf.

    An above the fold feature story in the January 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal reflects this view:

    "President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation's top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said advisers also are working on a plan to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts around the world. The CIA declined to comment.

    'The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world has become completely politicized,' said the individual, who is close to the Trump transition. 'They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.'" [source, Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes, Trump Plans Spy Agency Overhaul , Wall St. Journal, January 5, 2017]

    Exhibit two might be a bit less speculative:

    "In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

    The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey's conversations with Trump.

    'And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,' the sources quoted Comey as saying." [source, Ed Klein, Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn't Influence the Election ]

    Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson.

    During the 34 minute speech [video below] Brennan rendered his bizarre - near love affair - with Islam.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/mKUpmFb4h_U

    [approximately 5:40 into the speech]

    "...And as part of that experience, to learn about the goodness and beauty of Islam....I came to see Islam not as it is often misrepresented, but for what it is...a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity...[breaks into spoken Arabic]

    [approximately 7:30 into the speech]

    "...But I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. And time spent with classmates from Egypt, from Jordan, from Palestine, and around the world who taught me that whatever our differences of nationality or race or religion or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our families. To practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East...as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege [he corrects himself] that pilgrimage. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds ...Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together..." [see, William Mayer, John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address - Providing Aid and Comfort to the Islamists ]

    The use of the Arabic term - Al Quds - for the capital of Israel, Jerusalem by such a high ranking member of any American administration is really without precedent, leading one to view with great suspicion the allegiance of Brennan as well as raising substantial questions about his boss.

    For our fourth exhibit, we turn simply to the career of Mr. Brennan. He was recruited by the CIA straight out of college, proceeded to then serve for 25 years as a field agent followed by a long list of high level intel type government jobs. It's our judgment that though the CIA director really doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the box, that persona is a façade hiding a very skilled operator who views his current attack on the incoming president as if it were a clandestine assignment in some godforsaken part of the planet.

    In short Brennan is a man on a mission, Obama's bagman.

    And finally, as our fifth exhibit let's examine the logic, or lack thereof of why someone like Vlad Putin would prefer Trump over Hillary, thus providing him with motive.

    Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that Putin directed a group of Russia's best programmers to hack into the DNC's Internet network knowing that internal email would make Hillary Clinton and the entire Democrat Party look so bad that voters would decide to award the election to Trump.

    What on earth would motivate the wily Russian strongman to prefer Trump over Hillary, consider the facts.

    1. It's common knowledge that Hillary's bathroom server network was hacked at least 5 times by foreign intelligence agencies. Thus, her trading access for money through the Clinton Foundation would be well known to a group of individuals eager to exploit such weaknesses. So it follows that if Putin was clever enough to hack into the DNC which had a more secure computer network than Hillary's, he had at the same time a literal encyclopedia of dirt on the Clintons.

    This of course would make Hillary, as president an obvious target for blackmail.

    Think of what a crafty ex-KGB officer could do with only 1% of the type of information which was so inelegantly stored on the Clinton email server, let alone the whole enchilada.

    It would have made Hillary literally a puppet of Vlad Putin.

    2. Contrast this with Trump's promise to rebuild the military as well as America's infrastructure and take an aggressive stance against America's foes.

    Sorry, it just doesn't fly. The idea of Putin hacking Trump to victory is absurd and just the last in a very long list of excuses why one of the worst candidates for president in modern American history lost on November 8.

    The prosecution rests

    [Mar 14, 2017] Angler 2.0 Brennan Wields His Puppet Strings Differently by emptywheel

    John Brennan was Obama's Cheney
    Notable quotes:
    "... But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better: seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the President's steeliness. ..."
    "... "Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president's instincts. ..."
    "... The memo was written not long after Brennan started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story makes no mention of his presumed role in it. Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign advisor, one with an exclusively national security focus. ..."
    "... In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed. ..."
    "... There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his charging steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right. ..."
    "... There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify himself). ..."
    "... In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive one at that. ..."
    "... By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to get Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political discourse, at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism and has been slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared ..."
    May 29, 2012 | www.emptywheel.net
    As I said earlier , the parallel between the Jo Becker/Scott Shane Angler 2.0 story and the earlier series by Becker and Barton Gellman is hard to miss.

    But I'm very interested in how the stories are structured differently. With Angler 1.0, the story was very clearly about Dick Cheney and the methods he used to manipulate Bush into following his advice. Here, the story is really about John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, portrayed deep in thought and foregrounding Obama in the article's picture. Indeed, halfway through, the story even gives biographical background on Brennan, the classic "son of Irish immigrants" story, along with Harold Koh's dubious endorsement of Brennan's "moral rectitude."

    But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better: seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the President's steeliness.

    The Silent Sources for the Story

    I already pointed out how, after presenting unambiguous evidence of Brennan's past on-the-record lies, the story backed off calling him on it.

    But there are other ways in which this story shifts the focus away from Brennan.

    A remarkable number of the sources for the story spoke on the record: Tom Donilon, Cameron Munter, Dennis Blair, Bill Daley, Jeh Johnson, Michael Hayden, Jim Jones, Harold Koh, Eric Holder, Michael Leiter, John Rizzo, and John Bellinger. But it's not until roughly the 3,450th word of a 6,000 word article that Brennan is first quoted–and that's to largely repeat the pre-emptive lies of his drone speech from last month.

    "The purpose of these actions is to mitigate threats to U.S. persons' lives," Mr. Brennan said in an interview. "It is the option of last recourse. So the president, and I think all of us here, don't like the fact that people have to die. And so he wants to make sure that we go through a rigorous checklist: The infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base, the imminence of the threat, all of these things."

    That is the only on-the-record direct quote from Brennan in the entire article, in spite of the centrality of Brennan to the story.

    And I would bet several of the sources quoted anonymously in the section describing Obama's method of counting the dead (which still ignores the women and children) are Brennan: "a top White House adviser" describing how sharp Obama was in the face of the first civilian casualties; "a senior administration official" claiming, in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan were in "single digits."

    Note, too, the reference to a memo his campaign national security advisors wrote him.

    "Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president's instincts.

    The memo was written not long after Brennan started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story makes no mention of his presumed role in it. Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign advisor, one with an exclusively national security focus.

    Nor does the story note, when it describes how Obama "deployed his legal skills to preserve trials in civilian courts" it was John Brennan making that case , not the Attorney General .

    In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed.

    The Pro-Drone Narrator

    Given that fact, I'm really interested in the several places where the story adopts a pro-drone viewpoint (it does adopt a more critical stance in the narrative voice at the end).

    For example, the story claims, in the first part of the story, that the drone strikes "have eviscerated Al Qaeda" without presenting any basis for that claim. This, in spite of the fact that al Qaeda has expanded in Yemen since we've started hitting it with drones.

    Later, the article uncritically accepts the claim that the drone–regardless of the targeting that goes into using it–is a "precision weapon" that constitutes a rejection of a "false choice between our safety and our ideals."

    The care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets, and their reliance on a precision weapon, the drone, reflect his pledge at the outset of his presidency to reject what he called the Bush administration's "false choice between our safety and our ideals."

    For fucks sake! This article describes how the White House has adopted a "guilt by association" approach to drone targeting. It describes renamed signature strikes (though presents what is almost certainly an outdated picture of the targeting review process). Yet it uncritically accepts this "precision" claim–which clearly reflects a source's judgment–as true.

    Finally, a potentially even bigger bias is in the presentation of the al-Majala strike on December 17, 2009.

    It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind of precise operation that Mr. Obama favored. Videos of children's bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a ferocious backlash that Yemeni officials said bolstered Al Qaeda.

    The sloppy strike shook Mr. Obama and Mr. Brennan, officials said, and once again they tried to impose some discipline.

    The story doesn't name who the target was; it says only that the strike killed him, and the NYT repeats the claim without asking for such details.

    As I have noted , though, sources speaking immediately after the strike explained the target struck where "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." (The quotes here are from the source, not the ABC report.) There was, of course, an imminent attack being planned at the time, one about which we had at least some advance intelligence. That was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attack. I'm pretty sure the strike on a Yemeni site 10 days after he left the country missed him, though.

    These last two quotes–perhaps all three–look like comments a White House figure (and it'll surprise no one that I suspect it's Brennan) gave on deep background, such that his exact words are used, but without quotation marks or any indication of the source. Credible journalists would have no other reason to make such unsubstantiated claims, particularly the "precision" claim that they disprove elsewhere in the same article.

    Who Okayed Killing Mehsud's Wife?

    Ultimately, the depiction of John Brennan as Obama's puppetmaster is most interesting in the telling of Baitullah Mehsud's killing. This version conflicts in key ways from the story that Joby Warrick told in his book, starting with the uranium claim that provided the excuse for targeting him. And while I'm working from memory, I believe Warrick portrayed the approval of that killing–which might kill Mehsud's wife in addition to Mehsud–as involving Panetta alone. This version says Panetta consulted Obama–through Brennan.

    Then, in August 2009, the CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, told Mr. Brennan that the agency had Mr. Mehsud in its sights. But taking out the Pakistani Taliban leader, Mr. Panetta warned, did not meet Mr. Obama's standard of "near certainty" of no innocents being killed. In fact, a strike would certainly result in such deaths: he was with his wife at his in-laws' home.

    "Many times," General Jones said, in similar circumstances, "at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn't."

    But not this time. Mr. Obama, through Mr. Brennan, told the CIA to take the shot, and Mr. Mehsud was killed, along with his wife and, by some reports, other family members as well, said a senior intelligence official.

    I'm not surprised by (or critical of) the conflict in the stories. It seems like Warrick relied primarily on CIA sources telling a packaged version of the strike, while this story tells another packaged version of it. (Note, curiously, Panetta is only named in this passage and never quoted.)

    But I am struck by how obviously this story–whether filtered through Brennan as a direct source for this story, or filtered through Brennan for Panetta's consumption at the time–depends on John Brennan to narrate Obama's role. If he weren't involved somehow, the NYT wouldn't have included the "through Mr. Brennan." And while the detail doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things–Mehsud's wife's death will weigh no more or less against Obama's and Brennan's record than Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or the Bedouin women and children at al-Majala–it is a testament to the degree to which this story, and so many of those cited in this article, depend on Brennan narrating Obama's role.

    As I'll show in a later post, I think this story is an attempt to combat the picture of John Brennan's private signature strike shop that has developed over the last month. Perhaps it's even a way to protect himself by implicating the President , as Brennan's old boss George Tenet did with torture . Perhaps, too, this article (which given the number of on-the-record quotes, must be sanctioned) is meant to add to the campaign's portrayal of Obama as a fearless counterterrorism warrior.

    But I'm just as fascinated by the way that Angler 2.0 managed to wield puppet strings for the story about himself, too.

    emptywheel

    Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She's known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps. Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the "feuilleton," a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.

    joanneleon says: May 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Wow, that NYTimes story has 1088 public comments as of now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

    MadDog says: May 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Like you EW, I got the sense that this NYT story was the product of a number of different motivations.

    There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his charging steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right.

    There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify himself).

    There are a number of attempts by lesser Doubting Thomases to question the sanctity of both Saint Obama and Father John.

    There is a certain amount of seemingly NYT editorial tut-tutting as well as cheerleading.

    In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive one at that.

    By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to get Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political discourse, at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism and has been slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared.

    [Mar 11, 2017] Needed Now a Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come by Andrew Levine

    Mar 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems grotesque.

    As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.

    He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.

    More

    [Mar 10, 2017] The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates

    Notable quotes:
    "... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
    "... We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not. ..."
    "... What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone. ..."
    "... This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Stormcrow , , March 9, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Here is Raimondo's take: Spygate http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/07/spygate-americas-political-police-vs-donald-j-trump/

    The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.

    The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.

    And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.

    We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.

    What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

    This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.

    Perhaps overstated but well worth pondering.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Obama Spying Whistleblower Doubles Down On Trump Tower Wiretap Claim

    Mar 10, 2017 | radaronline.com
    Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin claims "the evidence is overwhelming" that the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump leading up his inauguration , RadarOnline.com has learned.

    "I'm saying the public record is damning of the Obama administration. It was investigating the campaign of a presidential candidate of an opposing party during the course of the campaign. Its use of FISA, loosening of NSA distribution requirements, husbanding and protecting information at the behest of White House staff on the way out the door, and recent leaks of confidential and perhaps classified information is extraordinary," Levin said in the CNN Reliable Sources newsletter.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Did Obama spy on Trump by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

    Notable quotes:
    "... FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance." ..."
    "... Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones. ..."
    "... Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous on several levels." Others have characterized them as a " non-denial denial ." ..."
    "... The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House." ..."
    "... Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress . ..."
    "... Trump has called for a congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.thecalifornian.com

    So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be true is that the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what authority and who was targeted.

    As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy summarizes in National Review, the Obama Justice Department considered a criminal investigation aimed at a number of Trump's associates. When they didn't find anything criminal, they converted the investigation into an intelligence probe under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . Elements of that story have been confirmed by The New York Times, the BBC and McClatchy newspapers.

    FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance."

    Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones.

    Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous on several levels." Others have characterized them as a " non-denial denial ."

    To the Obama camp's claim that the president didn't "order" surveillance of Trump, McCarthy writes:

    "First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that 'orders' surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff 'ordered' surveillance of Trump and his associates. The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House."

    And as journalist Mickey Kaus commented on Twitter, there's a reason why presidents name trusted allies as attorney general. As close as former attorney general Loretta Lynch was to Obama, and as supportive as she was of his political goals, it seems very unlikely that this was some sort of rogue operation.

    It's certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn't be the first president to engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his parents. Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress .

    Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents. After all, the notorious IRS scandal was about exactly that.

    Trump has called for a congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. Maybe, upon investigation, it will turn out that nothing improper happened – that this is a lot of smoke, but that there's no fire. But we can't know without an investigation, and if there really were political abuses of the Justice Department and the intelligence surveillance process, those guilty should not simply be exposed but go to jail. Such abuse strikes at democracy itself.

    Note that FISA surveillance is severely limited and requires information from surveillance to be kept very secret or, if not relevant, deleted. If those limits were exceeded, if Obama officials lied to the court, or if the information was – as it appears to have been – excessively shared within the government, or leaked to outsiders, those are all serious crimes, as First Amendment attorney Robert Barnes notes.

    Watergate brought down a presidency, but if the worst suspicions here are borne out, we're dealing with something worse. Hopefully not, but there's no way to tell at this point. As The Washington Post has been saying lately, "Democracy dies in darkness." Let's shine some light on what the Obama administration was doing during this election.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds , a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of " The New School : How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself," is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors .

    [Mar 10, 2017] Dear Red-State Trump Voter, Lets face it, guys: Were done

    Mar 10, 2017 | newrepublic.com

    Dear Red-State Trump Voter, Let's face it, guys: We're done.

    For more than 80 years now, we-the residents of what some people like to call Blue America, but which I prefer to think of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way-have shelled out far more in federal tax monies than we took in. We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and your nursing homes, sent you entire industries, and simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and oppressed portions of your populations, white and black alike.

    All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.

    Some folks here in self-supporting America like to believe that there must be a way to bring you back to your senses and to restore rational government, if not liberal ideals, sometime in the foreseeable future. Everyone seems to have an answer for how to do this. Every day another earnest little homily finds its way to me over my internet transom: "Think locally, act globally," or "Make art and fight the power," or the old Joe Hill standby-"Don't mourn. Organize."

    To which I say: Don't organize. Pack.

    Not literally, of course. Not even the good people of Canada should have to stomach a mass migration of moping American liberals mumbling, "Live locally make art." What I mean is that it's time for blue states and cities to effectively abandon the American national enterprise, as it is currently constituted. Call it the New Federalism. Or Virtual Secession. Or Conscious Uncoupling-though that's already been used. Or maybe Bluexit.

    Truth is, you red states just haven't been pulling your weight. Not for, well, forever. Red states are nearly twice as dependent on the federal government as blue states. Of the twelve states that received the least federal aid in return for each tax dollar they contribute to the U.S. Treasury, ten of them voted for Hillary Clinton-and the other two were Michigan and Wisconsin, your newest recruits. By the same count, 20 of the 26 states most dependent on federal aid went to Trump.

    Take Mississippi (please!), famous for being 49th or 50th in just about everything that matters. When it comes to sucking at the federal teat, the Magnolia State is the undisputed champ. More than 40 percent of Mississippi's state revenue comes from federal funding; one-third of its GDP comes from federal spending; for every dollar it pays out in federal taxes, it takes in $4.70 in federal aid; one in five residents are on food stamps-all national highs. You people-your phrase, not mine-liked to bash Obama for turning America into what you derisively referred to as "Food Stamp Nation." In reality, it's more like Food Stamp Red America-something your Trump-loving congressmen will discover if and when they fulfill their vow to gut the program.

    Trump's characterization of "American carnage" in our urban centers aside, cities now generate the vast majority of America's wealth-the cities, that is, where blue folks live. It's true that Hillary Clinton carried just 487 counties in 2016. It's also true that those 487 counties generate almost two-thirds of the nation's economic activity. ...

    [Mar 10, 2017] Dear Red-State Trump Voter, Let's face it, guys: We're done

    Mar 10, 2017 | newrepublic.com

    Dear Red-State Trump Voter, Let's face it, guys: We're done.

    For more than 80 years now, we-the residents of what some people like to call Blue America, but which I prefer to think of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way-have shelled out far more in federal tax monies than we took in. We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and your nursing homes, sent you entire industries, and simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and oppressed portions of your populations, white and black alike.

    All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.

    Some folks here in self-supporting America like to believe that there must be a way to bring you back to your senses and to restore rational government, if not liberal ideals, sometime in the foreseeable future. Everyone seems to have an answer for how to do this. Every day another earnest little homily finds its way to me over my internet transom: "Think locally, act globally," or "Make art and fight the power," or the old Joe Hill standby-"Don't mourn. Organize."

    To which I say: Don't organize. Pack.

    Not literally, of course. Not even the good people of Canada should have to stomach a mass migration of moping American liberals mumbling, "Live locally make art." What I mean is that it's time for blue states and cities to effectively abandon the American national enterprise, as it is currently constituted. Call it the New Federalism. Or Virtual Secession. Or Conscious Uncoupling-though that's already been used. Or maybe Bluexit.

    Truth is, you red states just haven't been pulling your weight. Not for, well, forever. Red states are nearly twice as dependent on the federal government as blue states. Of the twelve states that received the least federal aid in return for each tax dollar they contribute to the U.S. Treasury, ten of them voted for Hillary Clinton-and the other two were Michigan and Wisconsin, your newest recruits. By the same count, 20 of the 26 states most dependent on federal aid went to Trump.

    Take Mississippi (please!), famous for being 49th or 50th in just about everything that matters. When it comes to sucking at the federal teat, the Magnolia State is the undisputed champ. More than 40 percent of Mississippi's state revenue comes from federal funding; one-third of its GDP comes from federal spending; for every dollar it pays out in federal taxes, it takes in $4.70 in federal aid; one in five residents are on food stamps-all national highs. You people-your phrase, not mine-liked to bash Obama for turning America into what you derisively referred to as "Food Stamp Nation." In reality, it's more like Food Stamp Red America-something your Trump-loving congressmen will discover if and when they fulfill their vow to gut the program.

    Trump's characterization of "American carnage" in our urban centers aside, cities now generate the vast majority of America's wealth-the cities, that is, where blue folks live. It's true that Hillary Clinton carried just 487 counties in 2016. It's also true that those 487 counties generate almost two-thirds of the nation's economic activity. ...

    [Mar 09, 2017] The Surge Delusion: An Iraq War Anniversary to Forget

    Mar 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 09, 2017 at 05:31 PM , 2017 at 05:31 PM
    http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176252/

    March 9, 2017

    The Surge Delusion: An Iraq War Anniversary to Forget
    By Danny Sjursen

    The other day, I found myself flipping through old photos from my time in Iraq. One in particular from October 2006 stood out. I see my 23-year-old self, along with my platoon. We're still at Camp Buerhing in Kuwait, posing in front of our squadron logo splashed across a huge concrete barrier. It was a tradition by then, three and a half years after the invasion of neighboring Iraq, for every Army, Marine, and even Air Force battalion at that camp to proudly paint its unit emblem on one of those large, ubiquitous barricades.

    Gazing at that photo, it's hard for me to believe that it was taken a decade ago. Those were Iraq's bad old days, just before General David Petraeus's fabled "surge" campaign that has since become the stuff of legend, a defining event for American military professionals. The term has permanently entered the martial lexicon and now it's everywhere. We soldiers stay late at work because we need to "surge" on the latest PowerPoint presentation. To inject extra effort into anything (no matter how mundane) is to "surge." Nor is the term's use limited to the military vernacular. Within the first few weeks of the Trump administration, the Wall Street Journal, for instance, reported on a deportation "surge."

    For many career soldiers, the surge era (2007-2011) provides a kind of vindication for all those years of effort and seeming failure, a brief window into what might have been and a proof certain of the enduring utility of force. When it comes to that long-gone surge, senior leaders still talk the talk on its alleged success as though reciting scripture. Take retired general, surge architect, and former CIA Director Petraeus. As recently as 2013, he wrote a Foreign Policy piece entitled "How We Won in Iraq." Now "win" is a bold word indeed. Yet few in our American world would think to question its accuracy. After all, Petraeus was a general, and in an era when Americans have little or no faith in other public institutions, polls show nearly everyone trusts the military. Of course, no one asks whether this is healthy for the republic. No matter, the surge's success is, by now, a given among Washington's policy elite.

    Recently, for instance, I listened to a podcast of a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) panel discussion that promoted a common set of myths about the glories of the surge. What I heard should be shocking, but it's not. The group peddled a common myth about the surge's inherent wisdom that may soon become far more dangerous in the "go big" military era of Donald Trump.

    CFR's three guests -- retired General Raymond Odierno, former commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq and now a senior adviser to JPMorgan Chase; Meghan O'Sullivan, former deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush; and Christopher Kojm, former senior adviser to the Iraq Study Group -- had remarkably similar views. No dissenting voices were included. All three had been enthusiastic promoters of the surge in 2006-2007 and continue to market the myth of its success. While recognizing the unmistakable failure of the post-surge American effort in Iraq, each still firmly believes in the inherent validity of that "strategy." I listened for more than an hour waiting for a single dissenting thought. The silence was deafening.

    Establishing the Bona Fides of Victory in Washington, If Not Iraq

    With the madness of the 24-hour news cycle pin-balling us from one Trump "crisis" to another, who has time for honest reflection about that surge on its 10th anniversary? Few even remember the controversy, turmoil, and drama of those days, but believe me, it's something I'll never forget. I led a scout platoon in Baghdad and my unit was a few months into a nasty deployment when we first heard the term "surge." Iraq was by then falling apart and violence was at an all-time high with insurgents killing scores of Americans each month. The nascent central government, supported by the Bush administration, was in turmoil and, to top it all off, the Sunni and Shia were already fighting a civil war in the streets.

    In November 2006, just a month into our deployment, Democrats won control over both houses of Congress in what was interpreted as a negative referendum on that war. A humbler, more reticent or reflective president might have backed off, cut his losses, and begun a withdrawal from that country, but not George W. Bush. He doubled down, announcing in January 2007 an infusion of 30,000 additional troops and a new "strategy" for victory, a temporary surge that would provide time, space, and security for the new Iraqi government to reconcile the country's warring ethnic groups and factions, while incorporating minority groups into the largely Shiite, Baghdad-based power structure.

    Soon after, my unit along with nearly every other American already in theater received word that our tours had been extended by three months -- 15 months in all, which then seemed like an eternity. I sat against a wall and chain-smoked nearly a pack of cigarettes before passing the word on to my platoon. And so it began.

    Less than nine months later, the administration paraded General Petraeus, decked out in full dress uniform, at congressional hearings to plug the strategy, sell the surge, and warn against a premature withdrawal from Iraq. What a selling job it proved to be. It established the bona fides of victory in Washington, if not Iraq.

    The man was compelling and over the next three years violence did, in fact, drop. The additional troops and "new" counterinsurgency tactics were, however, only part of the story. In an orgy of killing in Baghdad and many other cities, the two main sects ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, expelling each other into a series of highly segregated enclaves. The capital, for instance, essentially became a Shiite city. In a sense, the civil war had, momentarily at least, run its course.

    In addition, the U.S. military had successfully, though again only temporarily, convinced many previously rebellious Sunni tribes to switch sides in exchange for money, support, and help in getting rid of the overly fundamentalist and brutal terror outfit, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). For the time being, AQI seemed to the tribal leaders like a bigger threat than the Shiites in Baghdad. For this, the Sunnis briefly bet on the U.S. without ever fully trusting or accepting Shiite-Baghdad's suzerainty. Think of this as a tactical pause -- not that the surge's architects and supporters saw (or see) it that way.

    Which brings us back to that CFR panel. The most essential assumption of all three speakers was this: the U.S. needed to establish "security first" in Iraq before that country's government, set in place by the American occupation, could begin to make political progress. They still don't seem to understand that, whatever the bright hopes of surge enthusiasts at the time, no true political settlement was ever likely, with or without the surge.

    America's man in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, was already in the process of becoming a sectarian strongman, hell-bent on alienating the country's Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Even 60,000 or 90,000 more American troops couldn't have solved that problem because the surge was incapable of addressing, and barely pretended to face, the true conundrum of the invasion and occupation: any American-directed version of Iraqi "democracy" would invariably usher in Shia-majority dominance over a largely synthetic state. The real question no surge cheerleaders publicly asked (or ask to this day) was whether an invading foreign entity was even capable of imposing an inclusive political settlement there. To assume that the United States could have done so smacks of a faith-based as opposed to reality-based worldview -- another version of a deep and abiding belief in American exceptionalism.

    A Surge Believer as National Security Adviser?

    ...

    [Mar 08, 2017] Capitalism and Its Current Crisis by Prabhat Patnaik

    See also Youtube Prabhat Patnaik - Capitalism and its Current Crisis
    Weak exogenously stimulus might be one of the current secular stagnation
    Mar 08, 2017 | monthlyreview.org

    The "thirty-year crisis" of capitalism, which encompassed two world wars and the Great Depression, was followed by a period that some economists call the Golden Age of capitalism. Today, however, capitalism is once again enmeshed in a crisis that portends far-reaching consequences. I am not referring here to the mere phenomenon of the generally slower average growth that has marked the system since the mid-1970s. Rather, I am talking specifically of the crisis that started with the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble in 2007-8 and which, far from abating, is only becoming more pronounced.

    The Western media often give the impression that the capitalist world is slowly emerging from this crisis. Since the Eurozone continues to be mired in stagnation, this impression derives entirely from the experience of the United States, where there has been talk of raising the interest rate on the grounds that the crisis is over, and inflation is now the new threat. There are, however, two points about the U.S. "recovery" that need to be noted.

    First, the so-called recovery has been greatly influenced by the boost in consumer demand, which in turn was stimulated by the drastic fall in oil prices. However, this increased demand has not been accompanied by any notable increase in investment activity, despite the fact that long-term interest rates are near zero-that is, despite a monetary policy that has been as supportive as it can be. We have, in other words, a repeat of the situation of the late 1930s, prior to the U.S. rearmament drive, when capacity utilization improved in the consumption goods sector without much recovery in the capital goods sector. 1

    Secondly, even this limited recovery in the United States has coincided with an extraordinarily high rate of unemployment. Official statistics show an exactly opposite picture, of a decline in unemployment to just 5 percent at present. But what is missed in these figures is the large exodus from the labor force: millions have become too discouraged to continue seeking work, and are therefore no longer counted as unemployed. In fact, if one takes the labor force to working-age population ratio (the labor force participation rate) from 2007, when the Great Recession began, and recalculates the size of the current labor force on that basis, then the current unemployment rate would be around 11 percent. 2 Many would put the figure even higher, on the grounds that the official size of the labor force is an underestimate even for the base date.

    To claim, therefore, that the United States is experiencing a full recovery is, in terms of working class well-being and economic security, wrong. And if we consider the rest of the world, especially recent developments in the "emerging economies," the situation is much worse.

    II

    The most significant of these developments is the slowing down of the growth rate in countries like India and China-that is, the spread of the crisis to the so-called emerging economies, especially China. Let us locate this slowdown in its proper context.

    Since 2005, the trade-weighted exchange rate (TWER) of China-its exchange rate vis-ŕ-vis a basket of currencies, where the weight of each currency depends upon its relative importance in China's trade-has appreciated by 50 percent. Even between 2009, when the TWER spiked, and 2015, the extent of appreciation was 20 percent. This basically meant that the Chinese economy was creating more room for the rest of the world to compete with it, and hence, in effect, to grow at China's own expense. China could afford to do so because an asset price bubble was then sustaining its domestic growth rate. In a sense, therefore, China was supporting the growth rate of the rest of the world, in much the same way that the United States had done decades earlier-though of course the stimulus provided by China was not as large. This Chinese support explains why the crisis continued, but not in as accentuated a form as it would have otherwise.

    But the asset price bubble in China has now collapsed, which, together with the effect of global stagnation on Chinese exports, has slowed the nation's growth rate. This explains the recent devaluation of the yuan by a little less than 4 percent, and the Chinese government's apparent willingness to effect greater devaluation in the future, camouflaged as a commitment to make the yuan more "market-determined."

    In a number of ways, the devaluation of the yuan, and official hints that further devaluations cannot be ruled out, constitutes the start of a whole new dynamic. First, it marks the beginning of a spate of competitive currency depreciations-apparently effected by the market but with the connivance of their respective governments-and hence of "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies, another echo of the 1930s, after the collapse of the gold standard. Indeed, after the devaluation of the yuan, several currencies have also depreciated vis-ŕ-vis the dollar. This is because the "market"-that is, speculators-have expected such depreciations and hence behaved in a way that actually brings them about. Meanwhile, goverments have been either unwilling to intervene to support their currencies, since that would hurt competitiveness and reduce net exports, or unable to do so, in cases where they lack adequate foreign exchange reserves.

    This spate of currency depreciations, which are likely to recur, represents, in effect, a struggle between countries for a larger share in a non-expanding world market. I discuss the issue of non-expansion below, but two points about this struggle over markets should be noted here. First, the United States is at a disadvantage in this struggle, since the currency depreciations are all vis-ŕ-vis the U.S. dollar. This means that there is no way that the dollar itself can be made to depreciate relative to other currencies. The United States has predictably postponed the increase in its interest rate, which the Fed has been promising for some time, since such an increase would only have appreciated the value of the dollar still further. Unfortunately, the Fed cannot lower its interest rates any further since they are already close to zero, and monetary policy is incapable of pushing them into negative digits.

    Thus, while the United States cannot use monetary policy to defend its net exports and hence prevent the additional unemployment arising from a reduction in net exports, it also cannot even hope that the value of the dollar vis-ŕ-vis other currencies will stabilize at their current level. When other currencies fall relative to the dollar, it only strengthens the tendency of wealth-holders around the world to flock to the dollar. This means that the undermining of the United States' net-exports position will continue, thereby exacerbating U.S. unemployment. In short, the dollar's role as a universal medium of wealth-holding, which has allowed the United States to finance massive current account deficits, will act as an albatross at the level of domestic activity and employment.

    To defend its domestic activity, the United States therefore has no alternative policy measure but to impose implicit or explicit trade restrictions, such as those in the Bring Jobs Home Act introduced in the Senate in July 2014. For even if the United States were to overcome the neoliberal aversion to fiscal activism in pursuit of larger employment and actually undertake a fiscal stimulus, without trade restrictions, the employment-generating effects of such a stimulus would leak out abroad even more than before. But any imposition of trade restrictions would undermine the neoliberal order, presided over by international finance capital, which the United States is committed to defending.

    The second point to note about this struggle over a non-expanding world market is that it would no longer just remain "non-expanding" in the weak sense of the term, but would actually begin to contract. This is because in a situation of widespread currency depreciation all currencies do not move up or down exactly synchronously. Consequently the calculation of profitability on projects becomes more difficult, as costs and revenues can fluctuate over any arbitrary stretch of time. Hence, the risks associated with investment increase, causing everywhere a shrinking of investment below what it otherwise would have been, and with it an overall contraction in the world market.

    This brings us to the second aspect of the new dynamic. The recent fall in China's growth rate has led to a collapse in world commodity prices (though some, like oil, began falling even earlier). This has already affected the growth rates of a whole range of countries dependent on commodity exports, like Australia, Chile, and Brazil, with the latter now "officially" declared to be suffering from a recession. The generalized fall in commodity prices will serve to shrink the world market still further.

    True, I said earlier that the fall in oil prices was a factor in boosting demand in the United States and hence provided a demand stimulus for the world economy. But there is a difference between the effect of a fall in oil prices alone and that of a fall in commodity prices in general. In the case of oil, the mean "marginal propensity" to spend-to use a Keynesian term-is higher for the buyers than for the sellers (since the latter are dominated by kings and sheikhs), while the opposite is likely to be true for other commodities.

    Though the fall in commodity prices in itself constitutes an additional cause of the worsening crisis, it poses a still greater threat through another channel, namely the prospect of what the early twentieth-century economist Irving Fisher called "debt deflation." 3 Fisher argued that if primary commodity prices, and consequently manufactured goods prices, fall, then the real burden of debt goes up for those for whom such goods appear on the asset side, against money-denominated debt obligations on the liability side. To improve their balance sheets, therefore, they try selling these assets, which only makes things worse, leading to huge falls in asset prices and hence to bankruptcies that deepen the recession. The advanced capitalist countries have been on the brink of deflation for a long time; current developments may push them over the edge and compound the crisis greatly.

    The third feature of the current crisis is the tendency toward falling stock prices. This can be part of the above-mentioned process of a commodity price fall-induced debt deflation itself. And insofar as the prospect of slower growth leads to stock price falls, independent of any fall in commodity prices, it can be an autonomous source of debt deflation. Falling stock prices, in other words, would also increase the pressure for balance sheet adjustments, which result in further falls in stock prices-and so on.

    What is particularly noteworthy here is that these three aspects-falls in exchange rates (vis-ŕ-vis the U.S. dollar), in commodity prices, and in stock prices-are likely to reinforce one another, as is happening now. World capitalism, in short, is poised for a serious accentuation of the crisis. And at the core of this crisis is the fact that there are no expansionary factors working towards an increase in the size of the world market. On the contrary, even the long-run tendency is now in the opposite direction, toward contraction. Let us now examine this latter issue.

    III

    A long line of argument going back to Rosa Luxemburg and Michał Kalecki states that a capitalist economy requires exogenous stimuli, as distinct from endogenous stimuli, for its sustained growth. 4 "Endogenous stimuli" are those stimuli for increased productive capacity that arise from the very fact that the economy has been growing. Their inadequacy for explaining sustained growth arises from the following problem: just as an economy subject to growth generates expectations of future growth, and hence induces capitalists to add to capacity in anticipation of such expansion, thereby keeping the momentum of growth going, so any slackening must work in the opposite direction. Capitalists must cut back on additions to productive capacity, and this will exacerbate such slowing of growth. And if an economy is caught in stagnation with no expansion at all, then capitalists have no reason to expect any growth (if endogenous stimuli are all that exist), and hence will not add to productive capacity, which in turn, by suppressing demand, would tether the economy to stagnation.

    Since this has not been the actual experience of capitalist economies, then there must be exogenous stimuli that bring forth investment, or autonomous additions to demand, quite independently of whether the economy has been growing. Exogenous stimuli, in short, prevent the economy from remaining trapped in stagnation and explain sustained long-term growth.

    This argument follows quite simply from a rejection of Say's Law, that is, from a recognition of the possibility of a deficiency of aggregate demand. The fact that aggregate demand may be deficient is what makes capitalists assess demand prospects before deciding to increase capacity, and this in turn is what makes endogenous stimuli insufficient for explaining growth, and giving rise to the need for exogenous stimuli. 5

    Among exogenous stimuli, three in particular have received attention from economists: pre-capitalist markets, state expenditure, and innovations. I use the last term in its widest sense: advances which make capitalists, with access to some new process or product, undertake additions to capacity in the hope of stealing a march over their rivals (or at least of not falling behind). However, the role of innovations as exogenous stimuli has been questioned, in my view legitimately, by a number of writers. 6 In oligopolistic markets, where price cuts to sell at the expense of rivals are generally eschewed, capitalists tend to give whatever investment they would have otherwise undertaken the form that innovation demands, rather than actually undertaking additional investment (that is, adding further to capacity), and in that case innovations cease to be genuinely exogenous stimuli. This is also confirmed by economic historians, who show that during the interwar Great Depression, the available innovations, instead of helping capitalism overcome its crisis, actually remained unused, and were introduced only in the postwar period of high aggregate demand.

    Pre-capitalist markets, or more generally the phenomenon of capital pushing outwards from its metropolitan core, played an important role as an exogenous stimulus in the pre-First World War period. The picture, however, was not as straightforward as Rosa Luxemburg suggested, in which capitalism simply selling at the expense of the pre-capitalist producers in the colonies. It was much more complex. Both labor and capital migrated from the metropoles of Europe toward the temperate regions of white settlement, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Argentina. Over four-fifths of all capital exports went to these regions. But the goods produced in the metropolis, especially in Britain, the largest capital exporter of the period, were not necessarily the ones most in demand in these developing "new regions," which rather required raw materials and foodstuffs from the tropical zones. Metropolitan goods were sold in the tropical colonies, and the tropical goods were exported to the new regions.

    The important point is that the tropical goods exported from the tropical colonies to the new regions in this system, which was dominated by the British, were not just equal in value to the metropolitan goods imported to the tropical colonies. That is, the tropical colonies were not merely used to change the form of the goods exported to the new white settler regions. The tropical exports to the "new world" were of much greater value than the goods the tropical countries received as imports from the metropolis, and while the domestic currency payment to the local producers of this export surplus came out of the colonial government's tax revenue (extracted largely from the very same producers), the gold and foreign exchange earnings from this export surplus were appropriated by the metropolitan country, without the tropical colony acquiring any claims upon the metropolis. This difference therefore constituted a gratuitous extraction by the metropolis from the tropical colonies without any quid pro quo (an imbalance that Indian nationalist writers, who were the first to uncover it, called a "drain of surplus" from the colonies).

    The exogenous stimulus in the pre-First World War period, in other words, came from the colonial system, which incorporated both the colonies of conquest, like India, and the colonies of settlement, like the United States, through a complex mechanism. This mechanism had three interlinked elements: a process of "deindustrialization," that is, displacement of pre-capitalist producers, notably textile manufacturers, inflicted upon the colonies of conquest by imports from the metropolis, which Rosa Luxemburg highlighted; the drain of surplus described above; and through this drain the ability of the metropolis to export capital for developing regions of recent settlement, in the commodity-form of tropical primary commodities, which these regions needed. The largest colony of conquest, India, posted the second largest merchandise trade surplus in the world for fifty years before 1928-second only to the United States-but its exchange earnings were entirely appropriated for supporting the metropolitan balance of payments. 7

    This entire arrangement, which underlay the secular boom spanning the Victorian and Edwardian eras, fell apart after the First World War. We need not enter here in detail into the reasons for this collapse, which included, inter alia , the "closing of the frontier"; the encroachment by Japan on the Asian colonial markets of Britain; and the world agricultural crisis, which led to a collapse of the colonies' exchange earnings, undermining the triangular system of payments. 8

    The subsequent interwar period was thus one when capitalism was without any exogenous stimulus, with the colonial system no longer effective and state intervention in "demand management" not yet even part of the theoretical discourse. 9 Is it any surprise then that the Great Depression of the 1930s occurred precisely during this period?

    State intervention to boost aggregate demand was tried first in Japan under Finance Minister Takahashi in 1931, but was extended by the Japanese militarists far beyond what Takahashi had wanted-to the point of having him murdered when he objected to higher military spending. It was introduced in Germany in 1933 with the Nazi rearmament drive. In the liberal bourgeois economies, it came on the eve of the war itself, with a stepping up of military expenditure necessitated by the fascist threat. It became a normal feature of capitalism, as distinct from a mere contingent necessity, only in the postwar years when, under the twin impact of the socialist threat from outside and of working-class restiveness from within, metropolitan capitalism was forced to abandon for the moment the principles of "sound finance." Such working-class agitation within the metropolis arose because workers who had made great sacrifices during the war were unwilling to return to their pre-war situation of unemployment and poverty.

    The postwar years of state intervention in demand management, which produced low levels of unemployment unprecedented in the history of capitalism, and hence high levels of growth (in response to the high demand), high levels of growth in labor productivity, and high levels of growth in real wages, have been described as a Golden Age of capitalism. While state intervention occurred in nearly every nation, the entire system was also buttressed by massive military expenditure by the United States, which opened (and maintains) a string of military bases all over the globe. As the Vietnam War escalated and U.S. military expenditure swelled, financed by printed dollars-decreed to be as good as gold under the Bretton Woods system-the rest of the world was obliged to hold on to these dollars, even as excess demand generated inflation. This inflation prompted a shift to commodities, and later to gold, resulting in the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system. An engineered recession followed, made worse by the fact that the price of one crucial commodity, oil, was kept up by a cartel, OPEC, even as other prices subsided.

    But if the mid-1970s recession in the capitalist world was the start of the dismantling of state intervention in demand management, the basis for this dismantling lay elsewhere. It lay in the phenomenon of the globalization of capital, especially finance capital, which had been occurring since the late 1960s and which had since gathered momentum. The regime of globalized finance meant that while finance was international, the state remained a nation-state. All nation-states therefore had to bow before the demands of finance capital in order to prevent any capital flight.

    This in turn meant controlling fiscal deficits, because, as we have seen, finance capital favors "sound finance" and dislikes fiscal deficits; it also meant reducing the tax burden on capitalists. These together snuffed out the scope for state intervention in demand management. Any stimulation of activity, either through a fiscal deficit or through a balanced budget multiplier (where revenues are raised to match increased state expenditure by taxing the rich) became well-nigh impossible. 10 Subsequently, of course, austerity in government spending was projected as a virtue on the purported grounds that private investment was crowded out by government "profligacy," an argument which was only Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) in a new guise.

    The point of this disquisition is to suggest that capitalism in the present era, the era of globalization which entails above all the globalization of finance, is without either of its two main exogenous stimuli-pre-capitalist markets and state spending to boost demand. The only stimulus for a boom therefore, apart from debt-financed enhancement of consumer expenditure (which can only be transient), arises from the formation of occasional asset-price bubbles. But such bubbles, even though they may produce occasional booms, inevitably collapse, so that the average level of activity through booms and slumps is lower than under the regime of state intervention. Besides, asset-price bubbles cannot be made to order; the system cannot hold a gun to the heads of speculators and force them to feel the kind of euphoric expectations that underlie bubbles. Consequently there may be long intervals, even during this period of general slow growth, when the system is submerged in prolonged stagnation and recession. There is, however, an additional factor of great importance that makes matters even worse in the era of globalization. Let us turn to it now.

    IV

    In the period before the current globalization, the world economy was deeply segmented. Labor from the South was not allowed to move freely to the North. As W. Arthur Lewis pointed out, there were two great streams of migration in the nineteenth century: a migration of labor from tropical and subtropical regions like India and China, which went as "coolie" or indentured labor to other tropical or subtropical regions; and a migration of labor from temperate zones of Europe, which went to other temperate regions like the United States, Canada, and Australia. 11 Once the era of slavery had run its course, these two streams were kept strictly separate through severe restrictions on tropical migration to the temperate lands.

    But while tropical labor was not free to move into the temperate regions, capital from the latter was free to move into the former. Yet despite this formal freedom, capital chose not to do so except in specific spheres like mines, plantations, and external trade. In particular, it did not move manufacturing to the tropical regions, despite the very low wages prevailing there-a result of the process of deindustrialization mentioned earlier. Capital from the temperate regions generally moved into other countries within the temperate region itself, complementing the flow of labor migration.

    The world economy was therefore segmented between the tropical and the temperate regions. In this segmented universe, the labor reserves of the South did not restrain the rise of real wages in the North when labor productivity increased. There was consequently, on the one hand, a widening of inequalities between the North and the South that encompassed even the workers, and on the other hand, a boost to demand in the North from rising wages that would not have occurred in the absence of this segmentation. 12

    Contemporary globalization has brought this segmentation to an end. Even though labor from the South is still not free to move to the North, capital from the North is now far more willing than before to locate manufacturing and service-sector activities-the latter largely through outsourcing-in the South. This now makes real wages in the North subject to the baneful influence of the massive labor reserves of the South. Not that real wages in the United States or any other advanced country are anywhere near parity with Southern real wages. However, they tend to remain stagnant even as labor productivity increases in the North. In fact, in the period of globalization, while the vector of real wages across the world remains more or less unchanged owing to the restraining influence of third-world labor reserves, the vector of labor productivities increases across the world. Both in individual countries and in the world as a whole, therefore, the tendency is for the share of surplus in output to increase. It is this context which explains Joseph Stiglitz's finding that even as the labor productivity in the United States has increased substantially between 1968 and 2011, the real wage rate of an American male worker has not increased during this period; indeed if anything it has marginally declined. 13

    This has two major implications. First, the increase in inequality now is not so much between two geographical parts of the globe (indeed, several third-world countries have experienced faster per capita income growth than the advanced capitalist world) as between the working people of the world on the one side and the capitalists of the world and others living off the surplus on the other. It is this increase in "vertical" as distinct from "horizontal" inequality that is reflected in recent works by several mainstream economists, like those of Thomas Piketty, though they attribute this inequality to altogether different and unpersuasive reasons.

    The second implication is that, since the "marginal propensity to consume"-again to use a Keynesian expression-is higher from wage income than from incomes derived from economic surplus, this growing vertical inequality in incomes (or, more precisely, the tendency toward a rise in the share of surplus in world output) produces a tendency toward a deficiency of aggregate demand and the problem of surplus absorption.

    This of course is an ex ante tendency, which could be kept in check if-as Baran and Sweezy argued, noting a tendency toward such stagnation in the United States a half-century ago-state expenditure could be appropriately increased to counteract it. 14 But what is noteworthy about the current period of globalization is that it both produces an ex ante tendency towards global demand deficiency and also prevents any possible counteracting state expenditure to overcome this tendency, due to the opposition of the vested interests to fiscal deficits and taxes on the rich. (It should be noted that larger state expenditure financed through taxes on the poor and the working class, who have a high propensity to consume anyway, does not boost aggregate demand, and so cannot counteract the tendency toward deficient demand.)

    The only offset against this trend toward demand deficiency, therefore, can come from the occasional asset price bubbles discussed earlier. Unfortunately, since they cannot be made to order, and since they inevitably collapse, the world economy in the era of globalization becomes particularly vulnerable to crises of recession and stagnation, which is exactly what we are now experiencing.

    In other words, when we combine these two features of the current globalization-namely the absence of any exogenous stimuli together with the endogenous tendency toward a global demand deficiency-we get an inkling of the structural susceptibility of contemporary capitalism to protracted stagnation. Either of these two features, i.e., the internal and external contradictions, would produce a tendency toward stagnation on its own. In the current period, however, the two features act together, and it is this fact which underlies the travails of contemporary capitalism.

    V

    The economic implications of protracted stagnation, and the possible systemic responses to it at the macroeconomic level, are matters I shall not enter into here. I shall, however, end by drawing attention to an obvious political implication, one that relates to the threat to democracy that this protracted stagnation poses, of particular significance in the case of my own country, India.

    The general incompatibility between capitalism and democracy is too obvious to need repetition here: capitalism is a spontaneous system driven by its own immanent tendencies, while the essence of democracy lies in people intervening through collective political praxis to shape their destinies, including especially their economic destinies, which militates against this spontaneity. The fate of Keynesianism, which thought that capitalism could be made to operate at close to full employment, and thereby be made into a humane system through state intervention in demand management, shows the impossibility of the project of retaining capitalism while overcoming its spontaneity.

    This conflict becomes particularly acute in the era of globalization, when finance capital becomes globalized, while the state, which remains the only possible instrument through which the people could intervene on their own behalf, remains a nation-state. Here, as already mentioned, the state accedes to the demands of finance capital, so that no matter whom the people elect, the same policies remain in place, as long as the country remains within the vortex of globalized finance. Greece is only the latest example to underscore this point.

    But once we reckon with the tendency of the system in the era of globalization to fall into a protracted crisis, this incompatibility becomes even more serious. In the context of crisis-induced mass unemployment, the corporate-financial oligarchies that rule many countries actively promote divisive, fascist, and semi-fascist movements, so that while the shell of democracy is preserved, their own rule is not threatened by any concerted class action. And the governments formed by such elements, even when they do not move immediately towards the imposition of a fascist state as in the case of classical fascism, move nonetheless towards a "fascification" of the society and the polity that constitutes a negation of democracy. In third-world societies such fascification not only continues but even increases the scope for "primitive accumulation of capital" at the expense of petty producers (which also ensures that the world labor reserves are not exhausted).

    But that is not all. Since such fascism invites retaliation in the form of counter-fascistic movements, as in the case of Hindu supremacism in India, which is starting to encourage a Muslim fundamentalist response, the net result is social disintegration. This disintegration is the denouement of the current globalization in societies like mine, and no doubt in many others. It is important, of course, to struggle against this, but at the current juncture, when there are no international workers' movements, let alone any international peasant movements, and hence no prospects for any synchronized transcendence of capitalist globalization, any such struggles must necessarily be informed by an agenda of "delinking" from capitalist globalization. This delinking should entail capital controls, management of foreign trade, and an expansion of the domestic market through the protection and encouragement of petty production, including peasant agriculture; through larger welfare expenditure by the state; and through a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.

    Notes
    1. ↩ For a discussion on this point, see Harry Magdoff, "Militarism and Imperialism," reprinted in his collection Imperialism Without Colonies (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2003).
    2. ↩ This is calculated from the U.S. Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. If we divide the number of persons employed in October 2015 (when the unemployment rate was 5 percent) by the workforce as it would have stood if the employment-population ratio in June 2007 were the same in October 2015, then the employment rate comes to 89.4 percent. This gives an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent, or 11 percent in round numbers. This is pretty close to the U-6 unemployment rate of the BLS (10 percent), even though the latter is calculated differently.
    3. ↩ Irving Fisher, "The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica 1, no. 4 (1933): 337–57.
    4. ↩ See Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1951 [1913]), and Michał Kalecki, "Observations on the Theory of Growth," The Economic Journal 285 (1962): 134–53.
    5. ↩ A detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Prabhat Patnaik, Accumulation and Stability under Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
    6. ↩ See for instance Joseph Steindl, Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976); Joan Robinson, introduction to Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital ; and Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review, 1966). For a discussion of this point in an historical context, see W. A. Lewis, Growth and Fluctuations 1870–1913 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978).
    7. ↩ For a detailed discussion of the issues involved, see Utsa Patnaik, "The Free Lunch: Transfers from the Tropical Colonies and Their Role in Capital Formation in Britain During the Industrial Revolution," in K. S. Jomo, ed., Globalization under Hegemony: The Long Twentieth Century (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006); and "India in the World Economy 1900–1935: The Inter-War Depression and Britain's Demise as World Capitalist Leader," Social Scientist 42 (2014): 488–89.
    8. ↩ While the first of these factors was emphasized by Alvin Hansen in his book Full Recovery or Stagnation? (New York: Norton, 1938); the second factor, the role of Japanese competition, is discussed in Prabhat Patnaik, Accumulation and Stability ; and the third, the world agricultural crisis, in Utsa Patnaik, "India in the World Economy."
    9. ↩ Lloyd George's proposal in 1929 for a public works program financed by a fiscal deficit to provide jobs to the unemployed, whose numbers had by then already risen to a million in Britain, was shot down by the British Treasury on the basis of an utterly erroneous argument that Joan Robinson, in her book Economic Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), calls "the humbug of finance." The famous article by Richard Kahn on the "multiplier" effect ("The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment," Economic Journal 41, no. 162 [1931]: 173–98), which provided the theoretical core of the Keynesian revolution, was written as a refutation of this Treasury view. For a discussion of the arguments involved, see Prabhat Patnaik, "The Humbug of Finance," in The Retreat to Unfreedom (New Delhi: Tulika, 2002).
    10. ↩ The United States no doubt constitutes an exception here: since its currency is still taken to be "as good as gold," increases in U.S. fiscal deficits do not cause any capital flight and are therefore sustainable. But at the same time, the consideration that the demand expansion caused by such an increase would significantly leak out abroad through higher imports, which would mean greater external indebtedness of the U.S. for generating jobs abroad, stands in the way. The closeness of the U.S. government to financial interests that frown on fiscal deficits, and the pervasive prevalence of the ideology of "sound finance," also work in the same direction.
    11. ↩ W. A. Lewis, The Evolution of the International Economic Order , (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).
    12. ↩ This demand aspect is emphasized by Joan Robinson in her introduction to Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital , 26–27.
    13. ↩ Joseph Stiglitz, remarks to the AFL-CIO Convention on April 8, 2013.
    14. ↩ Indeed, this was the crux of their argument in Monopoly Capital .

    [Mar 08, 2017] Prof Prabhat Patnaik on The Different Types of Nationalism

    Mar 08, 2017 | theinformerjnu.com
    9 March 2016: Prof Prabhat Patnaik , who holds the record of delivering the most number of lectures delivered in JNU, commenced his class on nationalism by stating ... https://theinformerjnu.com /2016/03/10/prof-prabhat-patnaik-on-the-di...

    [Mar 07, 2017] Obama s wiretap America by Andrew Leonard

    Notable quotes:
    "... The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that, according to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files." ..."
    "... FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval. One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever. ..."
    "... So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers. ..."
    Mar 07, 2017 | www.salon.com
    Did the surveillance state just take another gigantic Big Brotherish step forward? The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting that the Obama administration is planning to support an FBI plan for "a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services."

    Facebook posts, Skype calls, Google chats, Apple's iMessage - under the new plan, every form of Internet communication would have to be accessible to law enforcement wiretapping. Civil libertarians, Internet companies and privacy activists are all understandably unenthused. A blogger at FireDogLake immediately labeled the news proof that Obama intended to support the "end of the 4th Amendment on the Internet."

    That's a little overheated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, chiefly by requiring that search warrants be authorized by a judge and supported by probable cause. According to all descriptions of the new FBI wiretapping plan, if law enforcement wants to listen in on your Facebook chats or Apple iMessages, law enforcement will have to get a court order, just at it would if it wants to wiretap your phone. If society is going to grant government the right to listen in to our old-school phone conversations, it's hard to see how, in principle, it can deny the same right with regard to our Skype calls.

    The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that, according to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files."

    Now we're talking violation of the Fourth Amendment. And if we combine that kind of cavalier attitude toward our constitutionally mandated protections with vastly expanded technical surveillance capabilities, then we've got a real problem. Civil libertarians have a right to be nervous. Expanded power implies expanded opportunities to abuse that power.

    FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval. One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever.

    So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers. Yippee.

    Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Is Obama the First U.S. President Ever to Try to Topple His Successor

    Mar 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    This post won't debate whether Trump or Obama are good or bad guys. It will simply ask a historical question ...

    The Daily Mail claims :

    Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital – just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.

    Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.

    And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.

    ***

    According to the family source, Obama was at first reluctant to assume the role of leader of the opposition.

    'No longer the most powerful man in the world, he was just observing Trump and not liking what he saw,' said the source.

    'He was weary and burned out after eight years in office. But Valerie convinced him that he didn't have any choice if he wanted to save his legacy. And, as usual, he bowed to Valerie's political wisdom and advice.'

    ***

    'He had hoped to write his memoirs, golf to his heart's content. and bask in the glory of his eight years in power and the progressive achievements he brought about. Instead, he is going to be leading the fight and strategy to topple Trump.' says the insider.

    If true, would this be the first time in U.S. history that a former president has tried to topple his successor?

    VIP-LA , Mar 6, 2017 12:34 AM

    I support Trump and his appointees, however, his ppl are either too naive or don't have a back bone for this insurgency.

    Raging Debate , Mar 5, 2017 11:33 PM

    Since he is no longer POTUS fuck you Obama, you bankster, cum guzzling assblaster.

    DuneCreature , Mar 5, 2017 9:19 PM

    Barry just can't shake this FISA itch. .... I wonder if it's contagious?

    George Webb has some good detail on the FISA court OPeeping Barry story.

    'Parallel construction' when building a LE case, Google it if you want to know what the FISA court is really all about. ..... The phone taps are there and used all of the time and the FISA is the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card for all the agencies listening in to your phone conversations. ..........

    When legal details count, .......FISA is there..........to rubber stamp your bad, bad, bad LEO behavior.

    Live Hard, Killary Might Be Throwing Barry Under The Moving Prison Bus Along With His Consular, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    flyingcaveman , Mar 5, 2017 7:59 PM

    Alexander Hamilton gets that distinction...Bitchez!

    Fidelios Automata -> flyingcaveman , Mar 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    Not true, since Hamilton was never president. Like Barry, Hamilton was not a native born citizen, and in those days they respected the Constitution.

    hibou-Owl , Mar 5, 2017 7:50 PM

    He's the same as the zimbawe fossil who didn't like the election result. Only he has a higher IQ dictatorship.

    navy62802 , Mar 5, 2017 6:14 PM

    The peaceful transition of power has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of America's system of government. Obama and Valerie Jarret hate the United States and are trying to end the system of government we have. They and their operatives should be charged and tried for sedition.

    Dead Indiana Sky , Mar 5, 2017 6:13 PM

    Maybe he can be the 1st guest on Killary's new TV show. They can give each other handjobs under the desk while telling the person watching how evil everyone else is.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Newsmax CEO I Spoke To Trump About The Wiretap Story: I Havent Seen Him This Pissed Off In A Long Time

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning curve is way to steep and he is losing. ..."
    Mar 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    PoasterToaster , Mar 5, 2017 4:06 PM

    No one is denying that the Russians outrageously interfered in the U.S. election. What, exactly, did they do?

    JLee2027 -> PoasterToaster , Mar 5, 2017 4:10 PM

    Nothing. But they keep repeating it, because they think people will eventually believe it.

    Belrev -> JLee2027 , Mar 5, 2017 4:13 PM

    Pelosi loses it "Trump can't stop lying", doubles down on her lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoEArKwMSdM

    Chris Dakota -> stizazz , Mar 5, 2017 4:51 PM

    Trump supporter getting revenge on M13 gangster.

    https://twitter.com/San___Frexit/status/838456709714673664/photo/1

    I told you those red heads are trouble.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6LKyqeUwAAgVgH.jpg

    bamawatson -> Chris Dakota , Mar 5, 2017 4:52 PM

    mcStain's blue dress http://www.northcrane.com/2017/03/04/john-mccains-campaign-manager-arres...

    sleigher -> Stainless Steel Rat , Mar 5, 2017 10:21 PM

    "I hope he cleans fucking house and outs every last shit politician for every last little thing they are probably already being blackmailed on"

    He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning curve is way to steep and he is losing.

    I hate to say this but we are gonna see a sad end to this administration. Trump should be dropping any and every bomb he has but he isn't. By the time he figures out what to do it will be too late. I think it might be already. He expects the American people to stand behind and we are but that is not enough. I think it may be that time... that time we all fear would come and will show us the real America and Americans.

    Trump, if you read ZH, and you read this, drop everything NOW. DROP EVERY BOMB YOU HAVE. ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    fleur de lis -> sleigher , Mar 6, 2017 12:46 AM

    I agree. By now Trump has enough pix and AV to crush the firebugs in public. And if the Deep State and their psychotic friends in the CIA NSA FBI, etc., want to take it outside, Trump should unleash what good Intel forces are left and go Roman on them.

    Since the pervert Dems and their psycho alphabetroid friends are hell bent on destroying this country if they can't keep it in the swamp, then they may as well take a real beat down in the process.

    The one good thing about all this is that it is forcing all the DC sleaze out in the open where we can all see them for the power abusers they are.

    [Mar 06, 2017] The shadow of JFK assassination: is the US Intelligence community trying to depose Trump ?

    Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution" against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
    "... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
    "... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
    "... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
    "... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
    "... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
    "... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
    "... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
    "... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
    "... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
    "... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
    "... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
    "... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
    "... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
    "... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
    "... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 10:12 PM , 2017 at 10:12 PM
    Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.

    The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.

    Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.

    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the divide between the intelligence community and Trump.

    "Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.

    Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_ZfKmcnSk

    Defiant Christian Infidels

    Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist alliance. Deus Vult!

    Mike V

    In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know about this from WikiLeaks.

    How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.

    Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.

    Gg Mo

    See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.

    IT WIZARD

    Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community

    Joe

    The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
    sequorroxx

    Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power.

    Trisha Holmeide

    Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 04:12 AM
    Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 04:09 AM
    if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance

    faux media is a tool of 'leftie' oppressors who are okay!

    'leftie' oppressors want to force Christian bakers to make cakes

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm

    Washington Post - October 6, 1999

    ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.

    Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

    "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"

    Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/15/trump-is-showing-how-the-deep-state-really-works/
    Foreign Policy - Feb 15

    The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention, has been the how.

    The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.

    We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.

    Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.

    But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.

    The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.

    But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules

    At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence.

    For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.

    In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.

    The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.

    (Justice Department warned White House that
    Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
    officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)

    But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself. But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy way of saying "unredacted."

    The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under Title III of the U.S. code.

    It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which, during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.

    Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was President.

    At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.

    For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.

    But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn untruth.)

    Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did not match what Flynn insisted he said.

    McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not. But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for weeks.

    Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals. The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
    Obama's executive order and an act make it okay to attempt a coup trashing the 4 th amendment.

    The US confirms to the world it is not what it claims.

    [Mar 05, 2017] Obama says Trump claim he ordered Trump Tower wiretapped is false Fox News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Had my wires tapped"! Just became the new internet meme. ..."
    "... Trump has enough evidence to put bammy in JAIL ..."
    Mar 05, 2017 | www.foxnews.com
    Former President Obama on Saturday denied President Trump's accusation that Obama had Trump Tower phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.

    "Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.

    Trump made the claim in a series of early Saturday morning tweets that included the suggestion that the alleged wiretapping was tantamount to "McCarthyism" and "Nixon/Watergate."

    Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

    Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

    6:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017
    "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism," Trump tweeted.

    "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!" he said in another tweet.

    Trump also tweeted that a "good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

    "How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!" the president continued.

    Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration's alleged wiretapping.

    However, he could be referencing a Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the administration made two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server in Trump Tower, related to possible links with Russian banks.

    No evidence was found.

    The article was based on a segment by radio host Mark Levin.

    However, the timelines for each seems to draw from a range of news reports over the last several months, including those from The New York Times and Heat Street.

    Lewis also said Saturday: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."

    wouldsmash

    REOPEN CLINTON EMAIL SERVER INVESTIGATION

    encorezzzzzzz

    GOP lawmaker calls to investigate Obama's $418 million arms deal with Kenya.

    Fox News reported: A North Carolina congressman is calling for a probe into a potential $418 million contract between Kenya and a major U.S. defense contractor announced on President Obama's last day in office -- a deal the lawmaker claims reeks of cronyism. Republican Rep. Ted Budd wants the Government Accountability Office to investigate a deal between the African nation and New York-based L3 Technologies for the sale of 12 weaponized border patrol planes.

    He said he wants to know why a veteran-owned small company in North Carolina – which specializes in making such planes – was not considered as the manufacturer. IOMAX USA Inc., based in Mooresville and founded by a U.S. Army veteran, offered to build Kenya the weaponized planes for roughly $281 million – far cheaper than what its competitor, L3, is selling them for.

    "Something smells wrong here," Budd told Fox News. "The U.S. Air Force bypassed IOMAX, which has 50 of these planes already in service in the Middle East." "They were given a raw deal," Budd said of Kenya, which had requested from the U.S. 12 weaponized planes in its fight against terrorist group Al-Shabaab near its northern border. "We want to treat our allies like Kenya fairly," he said. "And we want to know why IOMAX was not considered."

    ricochetdog

    "Had my wires tapped"! Just became the new internet meme.

    Andrewmag16

    Why are democrats always meeting and dealing with us and then act like its bad if anyone else speaks to Russians?

    evolutionmyths

    Coming from an ... that never spoke any kind of truth . If he said false it means True

    SheSayEh

    Obama was community organizer of Chicago. Look at the mess he left behind there.

    MrChainBlueLightning

    The so called United States experiment should end. It was ultimately a failure. Red and Blue states should merge and form their own countries.

    CLUTCHCARGO1

    DON'T STOP INVESTIGATING. OBAMA NEEDS TO MEET INMATE BUBBA

    wouldsmash

    Trump has enough evidence to put bammy in JAIL

    MickeyQBitskoIII

    Soros would certainly have it done, and Obama and Hillary would be in on whatever "intel" is gathered, but there is NO WAY Soros would allow his favorite Kenyan lap dog to be directly involved in the operation.

    frdm399

    Tucker Carlson exposed Politifact, New York Times, and Washington Post fact checkers as liars last night. You just can't believe anything a democRAT says...

    jconnelly

    The US Govt was spying on Trump during the election. The Russians were spying on Clinton during the election. Which is worse?

    [Mar 04, 2017] There is extremely powerful and influential fifth column of globalization within the country which intends to block Trump efforts to reverse neoliberal globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
    "... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
    "... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
    "... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
    "... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
    "... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    cm -> im1dc... March 04, 2017 at 05:59 PM 2017 at 05:59 PM
    The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
    libezkova -> cm... , -1
    "The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."

    You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.

    Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.

    He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments.

    And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:

    1. Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism (despite being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump "bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist" on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational corporations).
    2. Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself.

    The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about banks and the US Congress

    == quote ==

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.

    On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion: the banks own the Senate.

    "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,"

    == end of the quote ==

    This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/03/03/done-paul-craig-roberts/

    [Mar 04, 2017] Update on Trumps Pro-Russiaism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during that meeting, Acosta said. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 03, 2017 at 05:45 PM , 2017 at 05:45 PM
    Update re Trump's Pro-Russiaism

    This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign

    Impeachment charge stuff imo

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jd-gordon-change-story-gop-platform-ukraine-amendment

    "Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"

    By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT

    "In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877

    CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed "Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

    Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during that meeting, Acosta said.

    Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those sort of details, as they've made clear."

    Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.

    Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican Party platform."...

    libezkova -> im1dc... , March 03, 2017 at 08:30 PM
    This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".

    This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.

    There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism, the better.

    Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected. He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.

    In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "

    This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.

    But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.

    BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful) in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia -- two major continental powers.

    Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.

    The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))

    So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).

    im1dc -> libezkova... , March 03, 2017 at 07:44 PM
    What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to cover it up.
    im1dc -> im1dc... , March 03, 2017 at 08:05 PM
    Serious question, what do you believe to be Director Comey's fingerprints on all of this?
    libezkova -> im1dc... , March 03, 2017 at 08:59 PM
    You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog (overtaking Fred)

    Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and political events; cm is one example).

    Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.

    As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of Tonkin incident is another)

    [Mar 03, 2017] Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Berlin. So the global capitalist ruling classes' neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty good start. It's barely been a month since his inauguration, and the corporate media, liberal celebrities, and their millions of faithful fans and followers are already shrieking for his summary impeachment, or his removal by well, whatever means necessary, including some sort of "deep state" coup. Words like "treason" are being bandied about , treason being ground for impeachment (not to mention being punishable by death), which appears to be where we're headed at this point.

    In any event, the nation is now officially in a state of "crisis." The editors of The New York Times are demanding congressional investigations to root out the Russian infiltrators who have assumed control of the executive branch. According to prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, "a foreign dictator intervened on behalf of a US presidential candidate" "we are being governed by people who take their cues from Moscow," or some such nonsense. The Washington Post , CNN , MSNBC , The Guardian , The New Yorker , Politico , Mother Jones , et al. (in other words virtually every organ of the Western neoliberal media) are robotically repeating this propaganda like the Project Mayhem cultists in Fight Club .

    The fact that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support these claims makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. As I wrote about in these pages previously , such official propaganda is not designed to be credible; it is designed to bludgeon people into submission through sheer relentless repetition and fear of social ostracization which, once again, is working perfectly. Like the "Iraq has WMDs" narrative before it, the "Putin Hacked the Election" narrative has now become official "reality," an unchallengeable axiomatic "fact" that can be cited as background to pretend to bolster additional ridiculous propaganda.

    This "Russia Hacked the Election" narrative, let's remember, was generated by a series of stories that it turned out were either completely fabricated or based on "anonymous intelligence sources" that could provide no evidence "for reasons of security." Who could forget The Washington Post 's "Russian Propagandist Blacklist" story (which was based on the claims of some anonymous' blog and a third rate neo-McCarthyite think tank), or their "Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid" story (which, it turned out later, was totally made up), or CNN's "Golden Showers Dossier" story (which was the work of some ex-MI6 spook-for-hire the Never Trump folks had on their payroll), or Slate 's "Trump's Russian Server" story (a half-assed smear piece by Franklin Foer, who is now pretending to have been vindicated by the hysteria over the Flynn resignation), or (and this is my personal favorite) The Washington Post 's "Clinton Poisoned by Putin" story? Who could possibly forget these examples of courageous journalists speaking truth to power?

    Well, OK, a lot of people, apparently, because there's been a new twist in the official narrative. It seems the capitalist ruling classes now need us to defend the corporate media from the tyrannical criticism of Donald Trump, or else, well, you know, end of democracy. Which millions of people are actually doing. Seriously, absurd as it obviously is, millions of Americans are now rushing to defend the most fearsome propaganda machine in the history of fearsome propaganda machines from one inarticulate, populist boogeyman who can't maintain his train of thought for more than fifteen or twenty seconds.

    All joking aside, the prevailing mindset of the ruling classes, and those aspiring thereto, is more frightening than at any time I can remember. "The Resistance" is exhibiting precisely the type of mindlessly fascistic, herd-like behavior it purports to be trying to save us from. Yes, the mood in Resistance quarters has turned quite openly authoritarian. William Kristol captured it succinctly: "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, [I] prefer the deep state to the Trump state." Neoliberal Rob Reiner put it this way: "The incompetent lying narcissistic fool is going down. Intelligence community will not let DT destroy democracy." Subcommandante Micheal Moore went to the caps lock to drive the point home: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on: TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO THROW THE ELECTION TO HIM," and demanded that Trump be immediately detained and renditioned to a secure facility: "Let's be VERY clear: Flynn DID NOT make that Russian call on his own. He was INSTRUCTED to do so. He was TOLD to reassure them. Arrest Trump."

    These a just a few of the more sickening examples. The point is, millions of American citizens (as well as citizens of other countries) are prepared to support a deep state coup to remove the elected president from office and it doesn't get much more fascistic than that.

    Now I want to be clear about this "deep state" thing, as the mainstream media is already labeling anyone who uses the term a hopelessly paranoid conspiracy theorist. The deep state, of course, is not a conspiracy. It is simply the interdependent network of structures where actual power resides (i.e., the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the corporate media, and so on). Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system regardless of which party controls the government. These are the folks, when a president takes office, who show up and brief him on what is and isn't "possible" given economic and political "realities." Despite what Alex Jones may tell you, it is not George Soros and roomful of Jews. It is a collection of military and intelligence officers, CEOs, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, politicians, power brokers, aides, advisers, and assorted other permanent members of the government and the corporate and financial classes. Just as presidents come and go, so do the individuals comprising the deep state, albeit on a longer rotation schedule. And, thus, it is not a monolithic entity. Like any other decentralized network, it contains contradictions, conflicts of interest. However, what remains a constant is the deep state's commitment to preserving the system which, in our case, that system is global Capitalism.

    I'm going to repeat and italicize that to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. The United States, the nation state itself, while obviously a crucial element of the system, is not the deep state's primary concern. If it were, Americans would all have healthcare, affordable education, and a right to basic housing, like more or less every other developed nation.

    And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they're sincere or not) has capitalized on people's discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where "Chinese" investors own "American" companies that manufacture goods for "European" markets by paying "Thai" workers three dollars a day to enrich "American" hedge fund crooks whose "British" bankers stash their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while "American" workers pay their taxes so that the "United States" can give billions of dollars to "Israelis" and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn't possibly care any less about the common people who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don't quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them or their families.

    But whatever they're all just fascists, right? And we're in a state of crisis, aren't we? This is not the time to sit around and analyze political and historical dynamics. No, this is a time for all loyal Americans to set aside their critical thinking and support democracy, the corporate media, and the NSA, and CIA, and the rest of the deep state (which doesn't exist) as they take whatever measures are necessary to defend us from Putin's diabolical plot to Nazify the United States and reenact the Holocaust for no discernible reason. The way things are going, it's just a matter of time until they either impeach his puppet, Trump, or, you know, remove him by other means. I imagine, once we get to that point, Official State Satirist Stephen Colbert will cover the proceedings live on the "Late Show," whipping his studio audience up into a frenzy of mindless patriotic merriment, as he did in the wake of the Flynn fiasco (accusing the ruling classes' enemies of treason being the essence of satire, of course). After he's convicted and dying in jail , triumphant Americans will pour out onto the lawn of Lafayette Square again, waving huge flags and hooting vuvuzelas, like they did when Obama killed Osama bin Laden. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't attend. Flying home may be a little complicated, as according to The Washington Post , I'm some kind of Russian propagandist now. And, also, I have this problem with authority, which I don't imagine will go over very well with whatever provisional government is installed to oversee the Restoration of Normality, and Love, of course, throughout the nation.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Ben Stein Unloads on Media, Calls Them Unelected Aristocracy, an Effete Corps of Impudent Snobs

    Mar 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Neoliberal MSM do want to repeat their feat with Nixon impeachment... No question about it. So deligimizing Trump is just a part of what Purple revolution is about

    mary mary -> BabaLooey , Feb 27, 2017 8:29 AM

    "Silent Coup" the book.

    Also, "everybody's got one".

    MSM portrays politicians who suck up to the Socialist Left as heroes, and those who fight it as bad guys.

    Reaper , Feb 27, 2017 8:19 AM

    The MSM is a tool of the Deep State. Bernstein & Woodward were the Ministry of Truth's agents helping a Deep State Coup of Nixon. Deep Throat was the Acting Head of the FBI.

    The new bosses were worse than the old boss.

    spanish inquisition -> IranContra , Feb 27, 2017 9:10 AM

    Fixed it... ISIS= CIA/Mossad=Rothschild

    There is no problem turning the CIA/Mossad complex inward for regime change in the US and Israel if they fail in their quest for advancing the NWO. Outwardly, Russia and Iran are not in the Rothschild fold and must be overthrown.

    Stinkytofu -> WhiteErmine , Feb 27, 2017 9:46 AM

    " I wonder if she even realized that she just threw down a slur on him by not calling him by title, President Trump? Whether intended or not,"

    of course she knew! it's part of the resistance, not my president, deligitimization, non normalization paradigm!

    Cui Bono -> Expat , Feb 27, 2017 7:45 AM

    That is hilarious! Stein is cribbing from Spiro Agnew- which Stein probably wrote in the first place:

    Sometimes it appears that we're reaching a period when our senses and our minds will no longer respond to moderate stimulation. We seem to be reaching an age of the gross, persuasion through speeches and books is too often discarded for disruptive demonstrations aimed at bludgeoning the unconvinced into action.

    The young--and by this I'd don't mean any stretch of the imagination all the young, but I'm talking about those who claim to speak for the young--at the zenith of physical power and sensitivity, overwhelm themselves with drugs and artificial stimulants.

    Subtlety is lost, and fine distinctions based on acute reasoning are carelessly ignored in a headlong jump to a predetermined conclusion. Life is visceral rather than intellectual. And the most visceral practitioners of life are those who characterize themselves as intellectuals.

    Truth is to them revealed rather than logically proved. And the principal infatuations of today revolve around the social sciences, those subjects which can accommodate any opinion, and about which the most reckless conjecture cannot be discredited.

    Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim, rather than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated, and a contemporary antagonism known as "The Generation Gap."

    A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals

    Vice President Spiro Agnew Speech, Houston, Texas May 22, 1970

    stellar bit of prose.....can you plagiarize yourself?

    blindfaith -> Expat , Feb 27, 2017 7:40 AM

    By the way, snowflake, Nixon was very close to instituting SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE for Americans, but ass hacks like you killed that.

    Do yourself a favor and put the video game down, get off the basement couch, and go read some history books. He got us out of Vietnem, Kennedy put us in it after Eisenhower warned him not to.

    Go get you Soro paycheck.

    847328_3527 , Feb 27, 2017 6:53 AM

    I haven't always agreed with Ben Stein but his opinion is always based on solid facts and logic. I am glad he called the media out on this farce against our President who is the Leader of the Free World.

    They have not criticized Obama or Hillary for their relentless murder of inncoent civilians overseas in Libya and Syria, etc. not even once. And Hillary and the DNC has the nerve to drag out some shill Muslim mr Khan to pretent they give a shit about Muslims.

    Trump is finally realizing these are very despicable people and he has tried to be polite to the media but they spit on him.

    Thanks for posting this video. Glad to hear Mr Stein's thoughts.

    TeethVillage88s , Feb 26, 2017 6:52 PM

    Richard Nixon was a Boy Scout compared to George W. Bush & President Barack Bin Ladin.

    "...Nixon is evil incarnate to leftards, as they view him as nothing more than a head in a jar, spewing hateful things -- plotting and scheming to undermine civility -- when in fact the true record of Nixon is the exact opposite."

    Yes.

    And what is apparatchik? See BBC & US MSM especially NYT, WaPo, CNN.

    Apparatchik - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik Apparatchik /???p??r??t??k is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" ( apparatus) ...

    Apparatchik | Definition of Apparatchik by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparatchik Define apparatchik: a very loyal member of an organization (such as a company or political party) who always obeys orders - apparatchik in a sentence.

    Apparatchik - definition of apparatchik by The Free Dictionary www.thefreedictionary.com/apparatchik n. pl. ap·pa·ra·tchiks or ap·pa·ra·tchi·ki (-ch?-k?). 1. A member of a Communist apparat. 2. An unquestioningly loyal subordinate, especially of a political leader or ...

    Apparatchik – Russiapedia Of Russian origin russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/apparatchik/ Communist middle managers An apparatchik is a full time employee in any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility who served either in Communist ...

    TeethVillage88s -> Arnold , Feb 26, 2017 7:08 PM

    Language is dynamic, living, changing.

    I remember Alternative was a thing in the 1980s... dreamy or space music... liberal or ragamuffin hippy politics.

    Alt doesn't really define anything, so an A for Alt doesn't work well for me.

    Maybe:

    - C for conservative - LC for Libertarian Conservative - FC for Fiscal & Regulations Conservative? - TC for Trump Conservative? - CC for Christian Conservative? - APC for Anti-Pedo Conservative? - AWC for Anti-War Conservative? - AGC for Anti-Globalist Conservative? - ABC for Anti-Byzantine Conservative? - ALBTLC for Anti-Lawyer-Banker-Taxes-Lobbyist Conservative?

    philipat -> BarkingCat , Feb 27, 2017 12:14 AM

    Ben Stein? Still, at least he has stopped trying to give financial advice which was even more accurate than Gartman as a contrary indicator?

    This appears to be another case of Stein trying to board a vessel that departed long ago. And I for one am happy to be on the ship without him. A complete shithead. IMHO.

    new game -> BabaLooey , Feb 27, 2017 6:45 AM

    nixon was one big mistake, that history can not erase. lbj worse. american politics will never get better until big money is removed -somehow, sigh...

    seems hopeless to me. democracy only at the poll. once elected these fuks follow the money trail provided by their payMASTERS, while lying to the voters.

    corporations(oligarchs) are the winners, and it is called fascism, when corp and state meet. tell these fukflakes that all of dc is fascist.

    the system needs fundamental change...

    constitutional convention tyme.

    term limits

    balanced budget

    big money out of politics.

    succesion provisions.

    gov.org overhaul tyme...

    [Mar 03, 2017] Interesting week for Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump

    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Trump – all words, no action, but good words

    In the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the "fake news" (which in "Trumpese" means CNN & Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the "DC swamp".

    Furthermore, by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time around and that is how he might win again.

    The Neocons and the US 'Deep State' have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye. If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what could happen next.

    I strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama's betrayal of all his campaign promises only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the 'deep state' was not going to let him take action or threaten him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support of "their guy" against the "bastards in DC". Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don't exactly imagine the cops going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters the latter will easily defeat the former. The "basket of deplorables" are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.

    There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would remind any "DC swamp" members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that. Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?

    Donald Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in "enemy territory" controlled by the "deplorables", something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.

    This week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump – he won't have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank God for small favors

    I can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state, but I am not holding my breath.

    Tonight I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war. I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard. Only time will tell.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Against All Odds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Stupid White Men ..."
    "... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
    "... The Unz Review ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Mike Moore's flabby mug always looks indecently exposed, like middle-aged female genitalia. The fat slob could lead the old hags' march without the pink pussyhat. Just his own visage would suffice. He is actually similar to George Soros: the same obscene pussyface. For me, his appearance would doom him: like Oscar Wilde, I believe that ugly creatures are immoral as well. It's enough to look at Madeleine Albright, another pussyface, for a proof. But if you need more, his Stupid White Men has been the most execrable book produced in the US in this century: there he claimed that were 9/11 passengers black, the hijack would never have succeeded. Now the Pussyface bared the hidden plans of Putin and called for enthroninge Clinton because Trump is a Russian spy . Years ago he spoke against the Iraq War; now he calls for the nuclear Armageddon. With such enemies, we should not give up on Trump.

    Trump is down, cry the fans and haters alike. He's been defeated, broken, never to rise again. He is a lame duck soon to be impeached. He will crawl back to his golden lair leaving the White House to his betters, or even better, he will run to his pal Vlad Putin.

    No, my friends and readers, Trump is fighting, not running, but things take time. It is not easy to change the paradigm, and the odds were heavily slanted against Trump from step one. Still, he got this far, and he will go on. Stubborn guy, and he perseveres. The corrupt judges chain his hands; the CIA and NSA reveal his moves to the NYT, CNN, NBC ; but he stands up, ready to carry the fight to his – and American people's – enemy, the hydra of so many triple-letter heads.

    There are sprinters who want to see victory right away, and they despair at the first setback. A power-intoxicated judge opens America's gates for the ISIS advance troops, voiding a very moderate and sensible executive order, and they wring their hands. Terrible, but what could Trump do? To do nothing because his order would be overturned? He had to try, so the people will see and judge the judges. Line the judges up against the (Mexican border) wall at sunrise? He can't do it yet, though it would make sense.

    Flynn had to leave, and they exclaim: all is lost . It would be bad indeed, if Trump were to take it lying down, but he did not. At a very public and well-covered press-conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump said : "Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media - as I call it, the fake media. It's very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and the documents and papers that were illegally - I stress that - illegally leaked. Very, very unfair." These are fighting words, of a man who lost a battle, or a skirmish, but he still fights the war.

    Perhaps it would be better to keep Flynn, but politics is an art of possible. Trump's words of support for the dismissed general were already out of line.

    Trump had met with Netanyahu, and the faint-of-heart bewailed the US President's surrender to the nefarious lobby. The other way round. The ADL, the Jewish assault crew, attacked him for refusing to mouth their favourite word "antisemitism", Haaretz declared "Yes, Trump is an antisemite", the NY Times editorialised why he did not condemn the a-s word as demanded; Rabbis called his remarks "terrifying" and "anti-Zionist" for Trump refused to tromp the well-trodden impasse called "two-states solution". By the way, Palestinians do support one-state-solution mentioned by Trump and do not believe in the mythic two-states-solution, the Middle-Eastern equivalent of squaring the circle. Trump deftly applied his weapon of choice, Bibi Netanyahu's support; with this weapon a-blazing, Trump was able to beat off the bouts of a-s hunters without doing what they wanted.

    It would be better to forget about Jews altogether, but it can't be done while they own all the fake-news media and the hearts of ordinary Americans. Refusing to condemn a-s is as far as an American politician can walk without falling of the earth's disc altogether.

    After this explaining-away, let us admit that the first month of Trump's first term was an uphill one. We hoped the defeated forces would be reasonable and allow the new president to implement his agenda, but they carried on their arričre-garde battle. His task is huge: Trump endeavours to bury globalising capitalism before it buries European and American workers. Without Trump, America and Europe would be invaded by millions made homeless by R2P wars. Without Trump, the American and European workers would work in hamburger joints, while the financiers would bloat off their blood and sweat. Such a U-turn couldn't pass unopposed.

    Look back at people who achieved radical changes of such magnitude. I will not mention names so you won't be scared. None of them had a specially nice personality, but they had charisma, iron will, good memory, vision and perseverance; they were master tacticians, i.e. they felt when it was the right time to retreat and when to advance. Perhaps Trump has these qualities. But besides, they usually had a loyal and supportive party, or at least an army or secret services at their disposal. Trump has none.

    These additional tools are necessary to overcome the undemocratic and unelected elements of the government. In the US, the judiciary and media, two "powers" out of four, are profoundly un- or even anti-democratic. The media is owned by the media lords, usually rich Jews, and it promotes their agenda. Judges are instinctively anti-democratic; they despise democracy and popular opinion.

    ORDER IT NOW

    The judiciary is also heavily Judaised: three out of nine (or four out of nine) Supreme Court judges are Jewish. President Obama had tried to install an additional Jewish judge, and pro-Jewish elements will fight to prevent a non-Jew "stealing" his place. There are so many Jewish lawyers and Jewish teachers of law that this puts its imprimatur upon the whole profession. No radical change can be entertained and implemented unless these powers are limited.

    Trump has no loyal party, no reliable and loyal secret services. The US intel is against him, spies on him and delivers the goods to his political enemies. The Republican Party is suspicious of Trump. There are too many Republicans sharpening knives for his back, beginning with the old traitor, John McCain . Republican Senators and Representatives owe a huge debt to (a large extent Jewish) donors; they need the support of the media in order to get re-elected.

    Trump should establish control over his party, by placing his loyalists and weeding out his adversaries in the party apparatus, in the Senate and Congress. I'd advise him to break, humiliate and unseat a prominent hostile Republican Senator, even if the seat would go to a Democrat. It is not an impossible task. This would instill some fear in the meek hearts.

    Bringing the secret services under control is relatively easy: begin a witch-hunt after the traitors who leaked the contents of classified phone conversations to the media. This is high treason; a lot of people of dubious loyalty can be dismissed just in case of suspicion. A one-way ticket to Guantanamo will help to focus minds of potential traitors. They should be treated as harshly as poor Bradley Manning was. And anyway, the secret services are overblown; the US can't support one million spies. Eighty per cent should go. They should enter the labour market and be useful. The remainder will be loyal.

    The media can be subjugated by various means. Usually media holdings are not highly profitable and are susceptible to hostile takeovers; some holdings can be broken using anti-trust legislation. Hostile media lords can be brought to heel by checking their tax returns. In case of the NY Times , their system of multi-tier shares is plainly unjust and can be attacked by shareholders. The best and most radical measure would separate advertising and content by banning political content in ad-carrying publications, as I argued elsewhere , but it would need the approval of Congress.

    The judges are human; hostile judges who think they are above the president and congress can be subjected to thorough inspection with some prejudice. Life tenure should be abolished in the courts and in the universities.

    So the task of President Trump is formidable but not impossible. Cut the security services down to size of, say, British or French services (it is also a lot). Remember that after WWI, the US had no secret services at all, and prospered. Terrorise a media lord and a Republican senator. Discover the corruption of District judges. Open a can of worms in the Clinton Foundation. Try some neocons for lying to the Congress. Mend bridges with Bernie Sanders. Call your supporters to enlist in the Republican party and achieve your dominance in primaries. And yes, it will take time.

    Now you understand why the pessimistic assessments of our colleagues Paul Craig Roberts and The Saker are at least premature. In the face of the ancient regime's hostility, Trump will need at least six months merely to settle properly in the White House. Just for comparison: Putin had spent five years consolidating his power, and another five years solidifying it, though he had full support of Russian security services and a most authoritarian constitution written by the Americans for their stooge Mr Yeltsin.

    President Putin remembers that it takes time. For this reason, he is not unduly upset by President Trump's delay with normalising US-Russia relations. The fake news of Russian disenchantment with Trump are exactly that, fake news. Russians believe in positive developments for US-Russia relations, and they do not hold their breath.

    But why I do believe that Trump will win, at the end? The US is not an island; it is a part of the West, and the West is going through a paradigm change. Cuntfaces lost, Deplorables won, and not as a fluke. Remember, Trump was not the first victory; the Brexit preceded him. Between the Brexit vote and the Trump election, the British government hesitated and postponed acting upon. The Brits weren't sure whether that vote was a sign of change, or a fluke. After Trump's victory, the Brits marched on.

    The British judges – every bit as evil as the American ones – tried to stop Brexit by insisting that the case be sent to Parliament. They believed that the Parliament would throw the case out, and leave England in the EU, as their media demanded. But they were mistaken. Though the British public voted for Brexit 52:48, the British parliamentarians approved it 83:17. The Deplorables won hands down.

    Now let us cross the English Channel. The French Establishment preferred François Fillon (centre-right, a moderate Republican, in American terms) to inherit the chair of pussyfaced President Hollande. His victory appeared assured. But as he readied himself for the move to the Palais de l'Élysée, an unpleasant fact has been revealed. This modest member of parliament misappropriated (stole, in plain English) a cool million dollars of French taxpayers' best by claiming his wife worked as his parliamentary assistant.

    Now nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole, and the chances of the Queen of Deplorables, Marine Le Pen winning the May elections in the first round became highly plausible. She will be opposed by a soft socialist Emmanuel Macron, and he is not very impressive. His rhetoric of calling her "bitter" and "enemy of liberte-egalite-fraternite" as she is not keen on Arab immigration, probably will fall on deaf ears. People are bitter, and they aren't sure that more Arabs means more equality. So Marine may win, and France will become an ally of Trump's America.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Fillon accused "shadowy" forces of seeking to crush him, and probably he is right. This revelation took air out of his sails, and it came in the right moment, just like in the case of DNC emails. In both cases, the crime, or at least dishonest dealing of the culprit was real, and he (or she) deserved defeat. In both cases, only a real powerful and "shadowy" force could make it stick. This is not Russia: Russia is not in this league yet. It is a "shadowy" Western force standing for nationalist capitalism, against globalist liberal "invade-invite" force. This force helped Trump reach White House, this force caused Brexit, this force removed Fillon from Le Pen's way. It is probable Frau Merkel will lose the forthcoming elections, ruining Obama's preposterous plan to install Germany as the liberal globalised world's cornerstone.

    The Masters of Discourse are being defeated in all the West. Temporary setbacks of Donald Trump can't change this tendency. Nationalist productive capitalism is set to inherit from the financiers, the media lords, the minority promoters, the transgender toilets and women studies. The battle is not over yet, but meanwhile it seems the Deplorables are winning, and Pussyfaces are losing.

    We do not know who stands for the Deplorables. When Brexit won, the Masters of Discourse said the pensioners, lumpens, chavs did it. But then, the Parliament approved it. Mme Clinton despised the deplorables, but now Trump sits in the White House. With France and Germany in the queue, a new force is coming to the fore. It is supported by native majorities. Who leads it from behind? Industrialists, people of spirit, or just the Spirit of Time, the Zeitgeist? Whatever it is, this force will help Trump, if he will persist.

    Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

    This article was first published at The Unz Review .

    [Mar 03, 2017] let s assume Trump is impeached and removed from power. What s next ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... In my opinion most of the Trump supporters have more or less legitimate or at least understandable gripes. It is easy to translate those into martial rhetoric or even actions with no direct personal costs attached, like protest voting or lashing out against powerless minorities or symbolic targets like desecrating cemeteries under the cover of night. ..."
    "... For concerted violent actions that can have tangible consequences or outright secession from the teat that feeds them, the threshold is much higher. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova, 2017 at 09:09 PM
    OK, let's assume Trump is impeached and removed from power. What's next ? Dissolution of the USA ?

    Here are question that a former intelligence officer asks for such a scenario:
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/interesting-week-for-vladimir-putin-and-donald-trump/

    There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people.

    Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government.

    Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically.

    Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority?

    Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country?

    cm -> libezkova... , February 27, 2017 at 09:32 PM
    His VP would become president, I guess. I expect a lot of people will be pissed off, but I don't expect it to lead to civil war. The mid-1800's US civil war was fueled not by merely emotions, but strong underlying economic interests and ways of life that were threatened. I don't really see that in this context.

    In my opinion most of the Trump supporters have more or less legitimate or at least understandable gripes. It is easy to translate those into martial rhetoric or even actions with no direct personal costs attached, like protest voting or lashing out against powerless minorities or symbolic targets like desecrating cemeteries under the cover of night.

    For concerted violent actions that can have tangible consequences or outright secession from the teat that feeds them, the threshold is much higher.

    sanjait -> libezkova... , February 28, 2017 at 02:41 PM
    No ... it does not seem credible that TX and FL would secede over a Trump impeachment. Trump isn't that popular, even in those states. His approval rating is hovering in the mid-40s in Texas and in the 30s in Florida. There would have to be a HUGE swing in his favor in those states for the state governors to decide that sticking with Trump is more important than sticking with the Union.
    cm : , February 27, 2017 at 09:40 PM
    BTW, the "0" in "George W. Bush 0pens Up on Trump" is a digit zero not letter "oh". Probably unintended as zero and Oh are next to each other on the keyboard, and the difference may be hard to notice in most typefaces.
    libezkova -> cm... , February 27, 2017 at 09:53 PM
    There is some subtle irony in combination of "George W. Bush" and " 0pens ". I would leave it "as is".
    cm -> libezkova... , February 27, 2017 at 10:15 PM
    ???

    It slightly reminds me of the deliberate use of the word "pwned" to describe e.g. compromising and taking control of other people's computers or internet accounts, or technical/social defeat in general. It is supposedly a reference to a decades old computer game where "owned" was mistyped as "pwned".

    [Mar 03, 2017] The Brothers John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Allen Dulles masterminded the coup that turned Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh out of office and installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Less than a year later he presided over the operation that ousted Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. He set in motion plots to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. He delegated to his deputy, Richard Bissell, leadership of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. ..."
    "... Corporate greed is not new but for members of the US Congress and the Administartion to support corporate interests over Americans safety and put money ahead of the protection of the people of our country as well as the people of other nations is a violation of our US Constitution and these people should not be immune from prosecution. G.W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country and he killed hundreds of thousand of innocent citizens just so Brown & Root and Halliburton, V.P. Cheney's company, could receive billions of dollars of US taxpayer monies to rebuild the very infrastructure that Bush destroyed that provided the life support for the people of Iraq. ..."
    "... George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11-- "Why do they hate us?" The answer he came up with was, "Because of our Freedoms." When you read this book, you come face to face for the real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It's because these Bush's "freedoms" are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need apply. ..."
    "... The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers--John, the former head of the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam -- constitutes the true behavioral DNA of America-in-the-world. It's enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years. ..."
    "... This book is, in fact, a MUST READ... for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have paid for in the last half century--for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone who no longer wishes their "representatives" in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism. ..."
    "... Foster promptly works on a policy of "rollback" to replace the "containment" policy of Truman and Kennan. ..."
    "... The 1953 coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran was similar in the sense that it was made more urgent by Mosaddegh's nationalization of British oil interests after the Brits refused to let Mosaddegh audit their books or negotiate a better deal. ..."
    "... Kinzer writes that Foster saw a danger in a country like Iran becoming prosperous and inspiring others toward neutrality that might result in eventual creep toward the USSR, hence he and others like him had to be eliminated. How much the coup was driven to help the UK is unknown. The blowback from intervention in South America and Iran has since come back to haunt the US in the form of skepticism and greater Leftist angst against the US and the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. ..."
    "... This type of neutrality was against the Dulles' worldview, and in his memoir, Sukarno lamented "America, why couldn't you be my friend?" after the CIA spent a lot of manpower trying to topple his regime in 1958. There was also the training of Tibetan rebels in Colorado in 1957 and the ongoing plot to assassinate Congo's Lumumba, given with Ike's consent. ..."
    "... Allen Dulles' reign at CIA reads like the nightmare everyone worried about "big government" warns you about. Experiments interrogating prisoners with LSD, the purchase to the movie rights of books like The Quiet American in order to sanitize them, planting stories in major newspapers, planting false documents in Joseph McCarthy's office to discredit him, along with the private armies and escapades. Dulles comes under official criticism by Doolittle, who wrote that he was a bad administrator, bad for morale, and had no accountability-- all of which was dismissed by Eisenhower who saw Allen as the indispensible man. ..."
    "... When Castro seizes power in Cuba, the Eisenhower Administration made it official policy to depose him. ..."
    "... Dulles' last act was on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's assassination. This was problematic because Dulles' goal was to keep CIA assassination operations in Cuba a secret. Kinzer writes of Lyndon Johnson's desire to make Oswald a lone gunman with no political attachments, which brings us to a whole other story. ..."
    "... I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways, he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for "maintenance of national independence" but really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225). ..."
    "... the story of these two scions of an American aristocratic family, who were fully steeped in Calvinistic Protestantism (and it's capitalist ethic) and unquestioningly convinced of American Exceptionalism and it's Manifest Destiny to lead the world and make it safe for democracy and American Business ..."
    "... It is an exposition of the quintessential, archetypical American (WASP) mindset, worldview or psychology that has motivated our collective international behavior over the past six or seven decades. ..."
    "... All State employees that don't hew the line are regularly fired or transferred to obscure jobs or roles and in place are pro-CIA hardliners. ..."
    "... There is much here that further condemns Eisenhower. In many cases he fully supported and endorsed their plans while pretending not to, fully employing the most cynical of strategies; "plausible deniability". ..."
    "... Having read the 2012 Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith I was surprised here by the wealth of information that ties Eisenhower more directly to clandestine activities and their purposes. Particularly disappointing is his continues build up for the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba after Kennedy's election but before he took office and will little effort to brief the incoming president. Similarly our Vietnam involvement in the 1950's was so deep already as to make a Kennedy pullout far more difficult. ..."
    "... There is much here about these issues and the corrupt relationships between the Dulles's prior careers at Sullivan and Cromwell and their support of private interests while working at State and the CIA ..."
    "... At the heart of the story is the unfortunate belief by the brothers that if a country was not totally in agreement with American philosophy they were against us. Any nationalist leaders of a former colonial nation that believed in land reform or neutrality on the international scene had to be evil and must be destroyed. If they were not with us, they had to be communist. This American foreign policy changed the history of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America. ..."
    "... Its interesting to note that Kinzer asserts that on the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953, Eisenhower offered the position of Chief Justice to John Foster Dulles. According to Kinzer, Dulles turned it down because he wanted to stay at the State Department. The story has always been that Ike had promised Earl Warren the first seat on the Supreme Court in exchange for his support in the 1952 election - Warren had been out maneuvered by Richard Nixon to get the bid for the vice presidency. How different legal history would have been had John Foster Dulles become Chief Justice! ..."
    "... Author Stephen Kinzer explores the unique situation in which the intelligence gathering agency is also an actor. Throughout he illustrates how the relationship of their leaders enabled two agencies that would normally question and check each other, to work in seamless harmony to carry out the covert operations that both saw as primary instruments of American power. Behind them was President Eisenhower who had used covert operations during World War II and who approved their actions. In the end the author posits that the policies were the President's and the brothers were more his servants than his masters. ..."
    Amazon.com

    Mal Warwickon July 21, 2014

    They shaped US foreign policy for decades to come

    One of them was the most powerful US Secretary of State in modern times. The other built the CIA into a fearsome engine of covert war. Together, they shaped US foreign policy in the 1950s, with tragic consequences that came to light in the decades that followed. These were the Dulles brothers, Foster and Allen, born and reared in privilege, nephews of one Secretary of State and grandsons of another.

    What they did in office

    Allen Dulles masterminded the coup that turned Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh out of office and installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Less than a year later he presided over the operation that ousted Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. He set in motion plots to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. He delegated to his deputy, Richard Bissell, leadership of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Later, out of office, he chaired the Warren Commission on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "'From the start, before any evidence was reviewed, he pressed for the final verdict that Oswald had been a crazed gunman, not the agent of a national and international conspiracy.'"

    Foster Dulles repeatedly replaced US ambassadors who resisted his brother's assassination plots in countries where they served. Pathologically fearful of Communism, he publicly snubbed Chinese foreign minister Chou En-Lai, exacerbating the already dangerous tension between our two countries following the Korean War. The active role he took in preventing Ho Chi Minh's election to lead a united Vietnam led inexorably to the protracted and costly US war there. He reflexively rejected peace feelers from the Soviet leaders who succeeded Josef Stalin, intensifying and prolonging the Cold War. Earlier in life, working as the managing partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, the leading US corporate law firm, Foster had engineered many of the corporate loans that made possible Adolf Hitler's rise to power and the growth of his war machine.

    What does it mean now?

    At half a century's remove from the reign of the formidable Dulles brothers, with critical documents finally coming into the light of day, we can begin to assess their true impact on US history and shake our heads in dismay. However, during their time in office that spanned the eight years of Dwight Eisenhower's presidency and, in Allen's case, extended into Kennedy's, little was known to the public about about Allen's activities (or the CIA itself, for that matter), and Foster's unimaginative and belligerent performance at State was simply seen as a fair expression of the national mood, reflecting the fear that permeated the country during the most dangerous years of the Cold War.

    Diving deeply into recently unclassified documents and other contemporaneous primary sources, Stephen Kinzer, author of The Brothers, has produced a masterful assessment of the roles played at the highest levels of world leadership by these two very dissimilar men. Kinzer is respectful throughout, but, having gained enough information to evaluate the brothers' performance against even their own stated goals, he can find little good to say other than that they "exemplified the nation that produced them. A different kind of leader would require a different kind of United States."

    Their unique leadership styles

    To understand Foster's style of leadership, consider the assessments offered by his contemporaries: Winston Churchill said "'Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china shop around with him.'"

    Celebrated New York Times columnist James Reston "wrote that [Foster] had become a 'supreme expert' in the art of diplomatic blundering. 'He doesn't just stumble into booby traps. He digs them to size, studies them carefully, and then jumps.'"

    Senator William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Foster "misleads public opinion, confuses it, [and] feeds it pap." "A foreign ambassador once asked Foster how he knew that the Soviets were tied to land reform in Guatemala. He admitted that it was 'impossible to produce evidence' but said evidence was unnecessary because of 'our deep conviction that such a tie must exist.'" (Sounds similar to the attitude of a certain 21st-century President, doesn't it?)

    Allen, too, comes up very, very short: "He was not the brilliant spymaster many believed him to be. In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly every one of his major covert operations failed or nearly failed . . . [Moreover,] under Allen's lackadaisical leadership, the agency endlessly tolerated misfits." He left the CIA riddled with "lazy, alcoholic, or simply incompetent" employees.

    Stephen Kinzer was for many years a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, reporting from more than fifty countries. The Brothers is his eighth nonfiction book. It's brilliant.

    W. J. Haufon June 27, 2014

    Without John Foster Dulles There Would Have Been No Hitler and No Nazi Germany!

    After the Treaty of Versailles mandated the imposition of incredibly severe monetary reparations on Germany, John Foster Dulles in the 1930s, as a partner in his law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, assembled a coalition of banks to lend Germany over $1 trillion, (in today's dollars), supposedly for them to pay these reparations. Had Foster not organized these massive bank loans to Hitler's Germany and organized the sale of raw materials such as cobalt to fabricate armor plating to build Germany's war machine, there would have been no Nazi war machine or an Adolf Hitler to kill millions of Americans, ally troops and civilians in a war that would have never happened.

    As a reward our government appointed John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State so he could continue his war against democracy by orchestrating the overthrow of democratically elected leaders such as the Prime Minister of Iran to restore the Shah, and then continuing his reign of terror against other democratically elected governments such the CIA overthrow of the President of Guatemala in 1954 by his brother Allen, Director of the CIA, and installing a US controlled puppet President so the United Fruit could continued its monopolistic hold on the banana industry in that country and eventually throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean.

    Oh did I mention that JFD was a stockholder in United Fruit. Corporate greed is not new but for members of the US Congress and the Administartion to support corporate interests over Americans safety and put money ahead of the protection of the people of our country as well as the people of other nations is a violation of our US Constitution and these people should not be immune from prosecution. G.W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country and he killed hundreds of thousand of innocent citizens just so Brown & Root and Halliburton, V.P. Cheney's company, could receive billions of dollars of US taxpayer monies to rebuild the very infrastructure that Bush destroyed that provided the life support for the people of Iraq.

    Our Founding Fathers would never had fought to build a country of democratic principals if they knew that the political representatives in this country would worship money and support corporate greed over American human rights and freedoms.

    G.W. Bush said that the attacks on 9-11 were because "they hate our freedoms". What a disgrace for a President to lie and not say it was because we have been interfering and overthrowing democratically elected governments for decades. Shame on you Mr. Bush, but you will meet your Maker one day and you can explain why you killed so many people just so you and your friends could receive billions of dollars in profits. "May God Have Mercy on Your Very Soul"

    Mike Feder/Sirius XM and PRN.FM Radio on October 11, 2013

    Best Political/Historical Book in Years

    You know those reviews clips, headlines or ads that say "Must Read" or, "...if you only read one book this year..."
    I have to say, with all the books I've read before and am reading currently, this one is absolutely the most eye-opening, informative and provocative one I've come across in many years.

    And--after all I've read about American politics and culture--after all the experts I've interviewed on my radio show... I shouldn't be shocked any more. But the scope of insanity, corruption and hypocrisy revealed in this history of the Dulles brothers is, in fact, truly shocking.

    Just when you thought you knew just how bad the United States has been in the world, you come across a history like this and you suddenly become aware of the real depths to which "our" government has sunk in subverting decency, freedom and democracy all over the world.

    George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11-- "Why do they hate us?" The answer he came up with was, "Because of our Freedoms." When you read this book, you come face to face for the real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It's because these Bush's "freedoms" are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need apply.

    The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers--John, the former head of the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam -- constitutes the true behavioral DNA of America-in-the-world. It's enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years.

    I grew up practically in love with America and the Declaration of Independence. When I was a kid the USA had just beaten the Nazis. I saw the picture of the marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. I knew men in my neighborhood that had liberated concentration camps.

    But they never taught us the real history of America in high school and barely at all in college. If they had given us a clear picture of our true history, there never would have been a Vietnam in the first place--and no Iraq or Afghanistan either; Global Banks wouldn't have gotten away with stealing all our money and crashing our economy and Christian fundamentalist and corporate puppets wouldn't have taken over our government.

    Karma is real. You can't steal a whole country, kill and enslave tens of millions of human beings, assassinate democratically elected leaders of countries, bribe and corrupt foreign governments, train the secret police and arm the military of dictators for decades-- You cannot do all this and escape the judgment and the punishment of history.

    This book is, in fact, a MUST READ... for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have paid for in the last half century--for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone who no longer wishes their "representatives" in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism.

    I'll also add that Stephen Kinzer is also a terrific writer; clear, articulate, factual and dramatic. His inside the inner circle revelations of the Dulles brothers and their crimes is morbidly page-turning.

    Chris on October 11, 2013

    The Dark-side of American foreign policy

    The American people and the world at large still feel the reverberations from the policies and adventures of the Dulles' brothers. They are in part to blame for our difficult relations with both Cuba and Iran. This history helps answer the question, "Why do they hate us?" The answer isn't our freedom, it's because we try to topple their governments.

    The Dulles brother grew up in a privileged, religious environment. They were taught to see the world in strictly black and white. Both were well-educated at Groton and the Ivy League schools. Both worked on and off in the government, but spent a significant amount of time at the immensely powerful law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. They had virtually identical world views but nearly opposite personalities. (John) Foster was dour, awkward, and straight-laced. Allen was outgoing, talkative, and had loose morals.

    There's no need for a blow-by-blow of their lives in this review. The core of the book revolves around Foster Dulles as the Secretary of State under Eisenhower and Allen as the Director of the CIA The center of the book is divided into six parts, each one dealing with a specific foreign intervention: Mossaddegh of Iran, Arbenz of Guatemala, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, Lumumba of the Congo, Sukarno of Indonesia and Castro of Cuba.

    The Dulles view was that you were either behind the US 110% or a communist, with no room for neutrals. Neutrals were to be targeted for regime change. The author lays out explicitly all the dirty tricks our government tried on other world leaders, from poison to pornography. This dark side of American foreign policy can help Americans better understand our relationships with other countries.

    My difficulty with this book is the final chapter. The author throws in some pop-psychology such as; people take in information that confirms their beliefs and reject contradictory information, we can be confident of our beliefs even when we're wrong, etc. The Dulles brothers are definite examples of these psychological aspects. Then the author says the faults of the Dulles brothers are the faults of American society, that we are the Dulles brothers. I felt like a juror in a murder trial during the closing statements, "It's not my client's fault, society is to blame!"

    In most of America's foreign adventures, the American people have been tricked with half-truths and outright lies. Further more, these men received the best educations and were granted great responsibility. They should be held to a higher standard than "Oh well, everyone has their prejudices."

    I agree with the author that the public should be more engaged in foreign policy and have a better understanding of our history with other nations. However, I think he goes too far in excusing their decisions because they supposedly had the same beliefs as many Americans.

    Harry Glasson August 24, 2015

    So Eisenhower wasn't really a "do nothing" president, but based on this book, I wish he had done less.

    This is the most interesting and important book I have read in the past twenty or more years. Most Americans, myself included, considered John Foster Dulles a great Secretary of State, and few ordinary people knew Allen Dulles or had any idea how the CIA came to be what it is.

    Learning the facts as they have been gradually made public by those who were witnesses, and others who researched and wrote about the behavior of the United States during the height of the Cold War has been an enlightening and saddening experience. I was in high school during Eisenhower's first term, in college during his 2nd term, in the Air Force during JFK's time in office and deployed to Key West during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    My view of America was the same as that of most Americans. I was patriotic. I bought into the fear of Communist world dominance and the domino theory. But there was much that was being done in the name of fighting Communist domination around the world that was monumentally counterproductive, and contrary what we consider to be some of our basic principles.

    This book helps fill important gaps in my knowledge. I highly recommend it to anyone who would like to know what really was going on during the Cold War, its impact on where we are today, and Kinzer's take on why it happened that way.

    Mcgivern Owen L on August 15, 2015

    The Cold War at it Core

    This reviewer generally takes careful notes while he reads-the better to compose a future review. In the case of "The Brothers", he was drawn right into the flow of the story.

    "The Brothers" covers the period from the late 1940s to the mid -1960s when John Foster Dulles was the powerful Secretary of State and Allen Dulles was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. They fermented regime changes in Iran. Guatemala, Indonesia, the Belgian Congo and Iran. And, as many know by now, Cuba as well. The troubles they stirred up in Iran and Cuba persist to this day. The book jacket also states that the Dulles' "led the United States into the Vietnam War..." That statement is unproven within these pages. The Vietnam conflict was vastly too complicated to be reduced to one sentence.

    "The Brothers" is sharply written and well documented. There are 55 pages of end notes in a 328 pages of text. Author Kinzer ostensibly turns on the brothers for all their regime changing activities. He then reverses course and arrives at a most sensible elucidation: The brothers Dulles were a product of their times and "exemplified the nation that produced them". A different kind of leader would require a different United States". This reviewer can live with that sentiment.

    There was a deadly serious Cold War in session during this period the brothers Dulles were at the core. Author Kinzer deserves credit for capturing the essence of that era as well as he does.

    Amazon Customer on August 10, 2015

    Informative and entertaining while also scary. Author oversimplifies, omits much about diplomacy besides the Cold War.

    This is my third Kinzer book (The Crescent and the Star and Reset), he is a master at spinning off new books from research collected while writing other books. This work peels back the cover on U.S. covert and overt foreign policy in the 1950s and what happens when two brothers have too much power within an Administration that has the public's trust and far too little of its scrutiny. It is a joint biography of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles who were Secretary of State (1953-1958) and CIA Director (1953-1961), respectively.

    Some reviewers have pointed out that Kinzer tends to oversimplify his message. For example, Eisenhower and Dulles' overthrow of Mohammed Mosadegh, for example, may have had something to do with our needing Britain's support in SE Asia more than simply a crusade to eliminate anyone who was not clearly "for us" or "against the Communists." This book covers some of the territory of Trento's Prelude to Terror, Perkin's controversial Confessions of an Economic Hitman and the similar compilation A Game as Old as Empire. You may not believe what you read here as the facts certainly seem more like fiction. Did the U.S. really (clumsily) secretly spend blood and treasure to try and subvert governments on every continent? How many assassinations and overthrows did Eisenhower surreptitiously give the go-ahead on? Eisenhower essentially comes across as a monster from our 2015 vantage point. But is he any different than a President Obama who is given intelligence and orders drone strikes to assassinate enemies of U.S. foreign policy? You be the judge. This book speaks volumes about what is learned by declassification of documents over time. I will say that I read a great biography on George Kennan last year and there appears to be little overlap; Kennan's foreign policy may have been too dovish for the Dulles, but he had helped create the precursor to the CIA, the Office of Policy Creation, on which both Dulles brothers worked--this connection gets no attention from Kinzer. Much of the diplomatic effort during the Cold War-- which did exist-- at this time are left unmentioned by Kinzer, which is problematic.

    The Dulles family grew up with an international mindset. One grandfather (John W. Foster) was an Ambassador (before that title was formalized) to several countries, including Russia, before becoming Secretary of State.The other was a missionary to India. They had other family connections working in diplomacy and such a career seemed just fine to them. Their father was a conservative Presbyterian minister who had an awkward relationship with his wayward children. Kinzer writes that the boys (and their younger sister) essentially saw America as the City on a Hill that was bringing light to the nations through democracy and capitalism.

    Studying at Princeton hitched them to the rising star of Woodrow Wilson, who they adored.
    Sister Eleanor deserves her own biography, she was a pioneer as a PhD female economist who did relief work in WWI, attended Bretton Woods after WWII, and made her own career in diplomatic service.
    John Foster (Foster henceforth) attended the Paris peace conference with Wilson and was disappointed with the outcome, both he and Eleanor arguing along with J.M. Keynes that the German reparations were simply setting the stage for the next European war. At the time, Foster was working in international law for U.S. business interests, and even supposedly ghostwrote a rebuttle to Keynes' book to serve his own interests. Foster's law firm designed the legal arrangements by which U.S. firms could profit off the German reparations, which allowed him to be wealthy even during the Great Depression. He was the more religious of the bunch and was mostly faithful to his wife.

    Meanwhile, Allen Dulles was serving in the newly-formed Foreign Service while sleeping with as many women as would have him. In a "What would have been?" moment of history Allen reportedly brushed off meeting Vladimir Lenin, after Lenin supposedly called him just before Lenin went to St. Petersburg for the Russian Revolution, in order to engage in a soiree with a couple of blonde Swiss females. His own sister recounts that he had "at least a hundred" affairs, and his wife approved of some and disapproved of others. A sign of the times, they remain married although she probably miserably. This continued on all through his CIA years and makes one wonder why recent CIA chief David Petraeus had to resign for anything.

    Kinzer interestingly calls Wilson out for being a hypocrite, citing his inconsistent application of the doctrine of self-determination. While that doctrine stirred nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Wilson obviously didn't apply it to the Philippines, Hawaii, or other U.S.-occupied territories. Nonetheless, the three sibling Wilson devotees attend the Paris peace talks together. Foster returns to his law firm where he's made a full partner while Allen remains in the Foreign Service until joining the firm himself in 1926.

    The author ignores much of Foster's religious interest and involvement in these years. Foster changed his mind several times in life, whether in his religious devotions or from isolationist to interventionist. Interestingly, Foster was a German sympathizer and refused to believe any tales being produced about the Nazis as his firm had many German business interests. Allen disagreed strongly after touring Germany himself, and after Germany began defaulting on its debts the firm severed ties.

    Allen Dulles built up his network through the law firm, the Council on Foreign Relations, and his old Foreign Service contacts and made a fortune molding business deals for European connections, including those in Nazi Germany. After the U.S. enters the war, Dulles is recruited by "Wild Bill" for the new OSS, becoming the first OSS officer behind enemy lines, sneaking into Switzerland to do so. He meets with all sorts of characters while feeding intelligence to the U.S., much of which was false, but enough was helpful enough to expand his reputation. Of course, he has many affairs, including a long one with a woman his wife approved of and shared with him. Interestingly, when the Valkyrie operation was launched by German traitors to kill Hitler and restore order, Dulles was the main contact with the U.S. relaying news back to Washington. The participants wanted to sue for peace, but FDR officially rejected the olive branch and Dulles was not allowed to negotiate on any such olive branch. After the War, Truman abolishes the OSS.

    Foster helps draft the U.N. Charter and becomes an internationalist, seeing world peace as a Christian ideal. Foster apparently contributed to the "Six Pillars of Peace" outline by the Federal Council of Churches in 1942. He eventually reverses after the Iron Curtain falls, becoming a militant anti-Communist and seeing the USSR as truly and evil empire, the antithesis of everything American. Reinhold Niebuhr eventually pens critiques of Foster as he begins to promote a black-and-white vision of the world.

    Both brothers backed the Dewey campaign in 1948, which left them disappointed. However, Dewey appoints Foster Dulles to fill a void in the Senate, which immediately elevates Foster into a higher realm, although he promptly loses the special election for the seat. Nonetheless, he is appointed to the State Department by Truman and impresses people in negotiating the final treaty with Japan in 1950. This makes him a good choice for Secretary of State when Eisenhower is elected in 1952, and Foster promptly works on a policy of "rollback" to replace the "containment" policy of Truman and Kennan.

    However, Kinzer also writes that NSC-68, a top secret foreign policy strategy signed by Truman in 1950, was monumental in militarizing the response to the USSR and that the Dulles operated under an NSC-68 mindset. "A chilling decree" according to Kinzer, NSC-68 called for a tripling of defense spending in order to prevent Soviet influence from overtaking the West. Allen Dulles was appointed the first civilian director of the CIA and the die was cast.

    The 1950s roll like the Wild West, with Eisenhower signing off on expensive operations, assassinations, and propaganda campaigns at home and abroad. Supposedly, more coups were attempted under Eisenhower than in any other administration, and recently declassified documents show that Dulles' CIA actively engaged in Eisenhower-warranted assassination plots in the Congo and elsewhere. Perhaps Richard Bissell, Eisenhower's enforcer is more to blame than Kinzer allows. The CIA-backed 1954 coup in Guatemala was actually initiated by Truman years earlier, but demonstrated Eisenhower's resolve. "Once you commit the flag, you've committed the country." Dulles' secret armies in Guatemala and the Philippines needed U.S. airpower for support. If the media went with a story exposing operations, or a pilot was shot down, it didn't matter-- the mission must succeed once the U.S. was committed. The CIA even used religious-based propaganda in Guatemala to foment political change, having priests on the CIA payroll publish editorials denouncing Communism.

    Guatemala also showed the intersection of U.S. business interests and foreign policy. The coup was encouraged by the United Fruit Company, which had been a client of the Dulles' NY law firm and Allen Dulles had served on its Board of Directors; others in the Eisenhower Administration had ties. While Guatemala's president was democratically elected, he was a leftist, and anyone showing Leftist sympathies was to be eliminated, particularly in the Western hemisphere. The 1953 coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran was similar in the sense that it was made more urgent by Mosaddegh's nationalization of British oil interests after the Brits refused to let Mosaddegh audit their books or negotiate a better deal. Kinzer writes, however, that Foster in particular was unable to see anyone as "neutral." Mosaddegh believed in democracy and capitalism and could have been an ally, but Mosaddegh and others like Egypt's Nasser were nationalists who favored neither the US nor the USSR, but courted deals from both. Kinzer writes that Foster saw a danger in a country like Iran becoming prosperous and inspiring others toward neutrality that might result in eventual creep toward the USSR, hence he and others like him had to be eliminated. How much the coup was driven to help the UK is unknown. The blowback from intervention in South America and Iran has since come back to haunt the US in the form of skepticism and greater Leftist angst against the US and the 1979 overthrow of the Shah.

    Ho Chi Minh had initially offered the US an olive branch after WWII and was not opposed to working with US interests, but the more he was rebuffed the more he turned to harder Communism. John Foster Dulles apparently hated the French for abandoning Vietnam, and never forgave them. While Eisenhower did not want to replace the French in Vietnam, he eventually warmed to the idea as Foster promoted the "domino theory" that if one nation fell victim to Communism then others would soon follow and the eventual war would widen. Better to install brutal dictators as in Iran and South Vietnam than let a country fall. Another enemy was Sukarno in Indonesia who was trying to thread the needle between democracy, socialism, nationalism, and Islam. This type of neutrality was against the Dulles' worldview, and in his memoir, Sukarno lamented "America, why couldn't you be my friend?" after the CIA spent a lot of manpower trying to topple his regime in 1958. There was also the training of Tibetan rebels in Colorado in 1957 and the ongoing plot to assassinate Congo's Lumumba, given with Ike's consent.

    Allen Dulles' reign at CIA reads like the nightmare everyone worried about "big government" warns you about. Experiments interrogating prisoners with LSD, the purchase to the movie rights of books like The Quiet American in order to sanitize them, planting stories in major newspapers, planting false documents in Joseph McCarthy's office to discredit him, along with the private armies and escapades. Dulles comes under official criticism by Doolittle, who wrote that he was a bad administrator, bad for morale, and had no accountability-- all of which was dismissed by Eisenhower who saw Allen as the indispensible man.

    Eventually both John Foster Dulles and Eisenhower become old and unhealthy, Eisenhower suffering a heart attack in 1955 and Foster dying of cancer in 1959. Allen Dulles' libido slows slightly as age takes its toll and he becomes more detached from operations at the CIA, creating a more dangerous situation. When Castro seizes power in Cuba, the Eisenhower Administration made it official policy to depose him. While Dulles was officially in charge at the CIA, he was far detached from the details of the anti-Castro operations which the media had exposed and continued at great risk of failure.

    Newly-elected JFK inherits the Bay of Pigs invasion plans and faces a political dilemma: Back off and be accused of sparing Castro since the government was invested in success, or go forward and risk a disaster. Unlike Eisenhower, Kennedy would not consent to air support or other official military measures to help the CIA's army once it landed, dooming the operation. Those closest to the operation begged Dulles and others to cancel the operation to no avail. Dulles was enjoying a speaking engagement elsewhere in the region, giving the appearance of attachment to the operation while being completely oblivious to its failure. The White House forced him to resign in 1961.

    Dulles' last act was on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's assassination. This was problematic because Dulles' goal was to keep CIA assassination operations in Cuba a secret. Kinzer writes of Lyndon Johnson's desire to make Oswald a lone gunman with no political attachments, which brings us to a whole other story.

    Kinzer concludes the book with armchair psychology, writing that the Dulles brothers succummed to cognitive biases, including confirmation bias. They saw everything in the world as they wanted to, and not as it was. They were driven by a missionary Calvinism and the ideal of American Exceptionalism that clouded their lenses. They also seemed to consider themselves infallible in their endeavors. Ultimately, "they are us," writes Kinzer, which is why it is important to learn from them. The parallels with recent American military and para-military endeavors is also clear, but Kinzer lets the reader make those comparisons.

    I learned a great deal from the history of this book, studying the Dulles is an integral part in studying the execution of American foreign policy in the Cold War. Some of the omissions, simplifications, and psychoanalysis mar the book somewhat. 3.5 stars out of 5.

    Doug Nort, on April 23, 2015

    Too Much Passion;Too Few Facts

    This book is marred by Kinzer's repeated overstatements and failures to marshal facts to support his theses about the Dulles brothers.

    His failure to persuade me begins early: In the introduction Kinzler wrote of the naming of Washington's Dulles airport: "The new president, John F. Kennedy, did not want to name an ultra-modern piece of America's future after a crusty cold-war militant." He provides no documentation that Kennedy himself thought that. Given that JFK was proud of his own credentials as a cold warrior, it is unlikely that was his objection. It is much more likely his objection (or that of the staffer speaking for him in the matter) was that Foster Dulles was an iconic figure of the Eisenhower administration-which Kennedy and his New Frontiersmen viewed as having made a hash of things-or that he was a stalwart of the Republican Party, or that Dulles disapproved of a Catholic becoming president. Kinzler apparently thinks his sweeping statement is self-evident but it isn't to me.

    A few pages later Kinzler gives us another hint that the pages to come will contain sweeping, unsupported generalizations. He wrote "The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America." My goodness, didn't they share their times with FDR and Ralph Bunche and Dwight Eisenhower and Tom Watson and A. Phillip Randolph and George Marshall and a host of others who, although coming from backgrounds quite different from the brothers Dulles, are just as much the American story? The accomplishments and peccadillos of two brothers with an upper-class pedigree is hardly "the story of America."

    Chapter eleven contains several such unsupported or historically blinkered generalizations. At one point (sorry-I'm a Kindle reader, no page numbers), after noting "the depth of fear that gripped many Americans during the 1950s." Kinzler asserts that "Foster and Allen were the chief promoters of that fear." Crowning the brothers as chief fear-mongers ignores some powerful other voices: Khrushchev, Joe McCarthy, General Curtis Lemay, Nixon, Churchill, Drew Pearson, Robert Welch and his John Birch Society-the list could continue.

    At another point Kinzler says, "They [the brothers] never imagined that their intervention[s] . . . would have such devastating long-term effects." He cites Vietnam, Iran falling into violently anti-American leadership, and the Congo descending "into decades of horrific conflict." Regarding Vietnam, I think most historians would say that JFK, LBJ, and McNamara bear much, much more responsibility than do the Dulles brothers. As for their Iran and Congo sins, I believe those developments were much more due to unpredictable consequences than to the Dulles' blindness. Yogi is right: "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

    And on the same page (excuse me "location") Kinzler is quite certain that "Their lack of foresight led them to pursue reckless adventures that, over the course of decades, palpably weakened American security." The reader who already believes that will nod and read on while the reader who expects this ringing declaration to be followed by specifics that provide powerful support will read it and say, like the customer in the fast food ad, "where's the beef?"

    OK, enough already. Kinzler's writing obviously pushed my buttons and I wouldn't have finished the book but for it being a selection of my book club. I am fine with criticism of people and policies when well-documented-for example Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy-but I lose patience with book-length op-ed pieces such as The Brothers.

    Dale P. Henkenon, April 6, 2015

    Cuba Si! Yankee No!

    If a work based on Cold War history could construct a case against American (U.S.) exceptionalism, The Brothers by Stephen Kinzler would be a strong candidate. It illustrates the dangers of a coupling of foreign policy and covert operations involving what we now know as regime change.

    It is a story of the Dulles brothers and coups arranged by the executive branch triad composed of the President (Ike) and the dynamic duo of the Dulles brothers as Secretary of State and Director of the CIA (without congressional oversight) in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Indonesia, the Congo and Vietnam.

    It is a story that deserved to be told and it is told well. It is somewhat slow going at the start and one-dimensional but is a captivating read regardless. It is not a rigorous biography or history of the era and the events it depicts. It is driven by the thesis that our actions in the developing world even though driven by anti-communism or American idealism or Christian fundamentalist fervor (all were involved) can have baleful results.

    The results can be so bad that Americans are now resented and even hated and have been for generations in large parts of the world. Highly recommended.

    R. Spell VINE VOICE on March 28, 2015

    Who We Are as Americans in the 50s

    Engaging historical perspective that while dragging and repetitive at times, has so much information that frames our world now, and generally NOT in a positive way, that it should be required reading. Yes, I was aware of the name as a 61 yr old. But I was not aware of their roles. Not aware of brothers. Not aware of Allen's involvement in the CIA Nor aware of their careers at the massive law firm of Cromwell and Sullivan.

    But reading this was stunning and made me angry. George Dulles was more responsible for the Cold War than anyone. And documents after the war shows the Soviets were not near as devious as we give them credit for. But our fear painted a view of a hidden enemy bent on our destruction. We missed opportunities with Khrushchev. More importantly and totally unaware to me, these guys we responsible for government overthrows and were actively involved in the 1950s with alienating Vietnam leading eventually to a horrible loss of civilian lives and more importantly to me, American soldiers who were led in to the wrong war at the wrong time.

    But let us not forget the documented CIA overthrows of Congo, Guatemala,Indonesia and Iran. Is this America? Well, in the post WWII world, we lost our values and stooped to such tactics.

    There are stories here America doesn't study and they should. How the interface of commerce, politics and war can lead to disastrous results that haunt us today.

    Read this book to learn. Not all of it will make you proud. Yes, I learned. And yes, I'm angry and ashamed.

    Schnitzon February 25, 2015

    Allen Dulles May have Inadvertently Saved the US from a Nuclear Holocaust

    It is ironic that the Bay of Pigs debacle commissioned by Allen Dulles may have inadvertently prevented the incineration of millions of Americans in a nuclear holocaust. As the author points out when John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency he was told by his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower that the invasion of Cuba by Cuban refugees with support from the US should move forward. As a young, new President of the US, Kennedy did not want to appear weak so when Dulles presented him with the plan seeking his approval Kennedy found himself in a box.

    On the one hand Kennedy had doubts regarding the chances for success. On the other hand he wanted to appear strong to the people of the US and the world. This was the first true test of his presidency and legacy. After the abject failure of the operation Kennedy to his credit took full responsibility in his address to the American people but he would never again trust the CIA or the military.

    Fast forward tot he Cuban missile crisis. If Kennedy had not experienced the Bay of Pigs failure he probably would have placed more trust in the military and CIA who were vehemently urging him to bomb Cuba at various stages of the crisis. If he had taken the military's advice it would have likely resulted in escalation and possibly nuclear war with Russia. As it turned out Kennedy rejected the advice and negotiated a settlement which saved face for both sides. Kennedy's wisdom born of a past failure saved the day.


    Compelling and informative about an era which had a darker ...

    OLD1mIKEon February 17, 2015

    The Dulles Brothers. They changed History.

    Five Stars. Great book. Readable. Well researched, Informative. Highly recommended for someone interested in mid 20th century history or understanding the root cause of the anti-american animosity in certain parts of the world.

    The Dulles brothers played pivotal roles in an incredible number of historic events that shaped the 20th century. They exemplified american attitudes and beliefs of their day and were placed in positions to act on these beliefs. The book not only presents their part in history, but also helps us understand the reasoning behind their actions.

    I should leave the book review end with the above paragraphs, but I was originally unaware of how many key historical events of the 20th century the brothers participated in and influenced. I find it impossible not to casually speculate on their effect on history. John Foster helped write the Reparation portion of the WWI Treaty of Versailles. Some historians believe German anger over the unfairness of the reparations to be one element causing WWII. John Foster helped write the 1924 Dawes Plan that opened the door to American investment in Germany. Even in 1924 John Foster was obsessed with fighting communism. He saw a strong Germany as an effective stop gap against communistic expansion. Foster used his affiliation with Sullivan & Cromwell and his friendship with Hjalmar Schacht, Hitlers Minister of Economics, to increase American investment in Germany and its industry. Without international investment, Germany probably could not have supported it's military aspirations. Allen and the CIA was instrumental in the 1953 Iranian Coup that overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Government to install the Shaw of Iran. This action and the heavy handed governing style of the Shaw certainly led to some of the anti American resentment in the middle east today and the Iranian (Islamic) Rebellion in 1979. The Iranian Rebellion probably helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. In regard to Vietnam. Foster, acting as Eisenhower's Secretary of State, refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accord. Over considerable objections, John Foster and Allen chose and installed Ngo Dinh Diem as the 1st president of the newly created Republic of South Vietnam. Diem had been a minor official in Vietnam and was Interior Minister for three months in 1933. He had not held a job since. Once in power, Allen's CIA helped keep him there. John Foster continued to support the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam until his death in 1959. Allen took a hands off approach to the Bay of Pigs operation (17 April 1961), but as the Director of the CIA, it was his responsibility. JFK fired him in November 1961. There are JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory's that include CIA involvement. It is interesting that Lyndon Johnson personally chose Allen to be a member of the Warren Commission. Add U2 Spy Planes, Congo revolts, overthrow of South American leaders, Cuba and a host more. The policies and action of these two men changed global history and probably still effect the beliefs of many today.

    Loves the View VINE VOICE on December 2, 2014

    Attitude, Access, Ambition and US Foreign Policy

    Stephen Kinzer shows how instrumental these brothers were in the design of US foreign policy in the post war years. He shows how their attitudes and personalities were formed, developed, and grew to influence the course of history.

    The brothers' learned statecraft at their grandfather's side. John W. Foster, US ambassador to three countries, later served as President Harrison's trouble shooter and Secretary of State. He helped in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in Hawaii and later used his State Department connections to engineer government policy to benefit his corporate clients. Kinzer shows how the brothers benefited from their grandfather's access and came to dual pinnacles of power in shaping US foreign policy: one heading the CIA, the other the Department of State.

    The 1950's operations weren't as hidden as I expected. Allen Dulles, in the Saturday Evening Post, beamed with pride for removing Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. He even has copies made of Diego Rivera's critical mural where he is depicted taking money while his brother shakes hands with a local puppet and Eisenhower is pictured on a bomb. Many willingly joined in dirty tricks, for instance Cardinal Spellman wrote a pastoral letter to Guatemalan Catholics calling their President a dangerous communist.

    I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways, he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for "maintenance of national independence" but really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225).

    With today's internet and 24 hour news cycle, can large covert operations such as those against the President Sukarno (the first president of Indonesia who naively looked to the US for help in developing his nation's fledgling democracy) go under the radar? I presume the CIA budget can still hide items such as the $6 million a year paid to the Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen (who should have been tried at Nuremberg (p. 185)).

    By preventing compromise when compromise was possible, the brothers and President Eisenhower, prolonged the Cold War into the Khruschev era and sowed the seeds of the Vietnam War. The lack of reflection or personal responsibility is clear in the quote on p. 283 when years later Allen Dulles coolly tells Eric Sevareid regarding the torture and murder of Patrice Lumumba, that " we may have overrated the danger.." How would the Congo be today if the US had left its fledgling democracy alone, and not have installed Mobutu in a leadership position?

    The last coup attempt in the book is the Bay of Pigs. It was an Eisenhower approved intervention and there seemed that to be no turning back for Kennedy. Its fiasco signaled the end of Allen Dulles, but not the Cold War since its relic, Vietnam as a domino, was an image deeply ingrained in policy DNA.

    In a side story, the brothers show little consideration to their sister, who had to push to have a career. She marginally benefits from the family name. They do not see that they have been born on third base and she on first. In fact, when it is convenient for them, they try to fire her, yet still go to her house for holiday dinners.

    Kinzer concludes with recent work in psychology and personality profiling (" blind ourself to contrary positions prepared to pay a high price to preserve our most cherished ideas declarations of high confidence mainly tell you an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind beliefs become how you prove your identity.." p. 322) that not only characterize the brothers, but a lot of the thinking in the Cold War.

    These paradigms are with us today. Too many politicians and their appointees still their job as responding to lobbyists, not just for big business, but for foreign countries with interests contrary to those of the US. Similarly there are those who force their economic ideology on small and helpless countries. The book tells a sobering and troubling story. It is greatly at odds with what is taught in high schools. This book has been out for a year now, and it seems the story told is just more noise in political system. Unfortunately it will make a large event for insiders in Washington to reflect on what we now call "muscular" foreign policy and its results.

    Regnal the Caretakeron November 13, 2014

    Nasty lawyers and the rise of CIA

    These two globo-corporate lawyers dictated USA foreign policy during governance of four presidents: Roosevelt, Truman (he signed CIA into the law in 1947), Eisenhower and Kennedy. They were called 'Cold Warriors' and built Cold War model which rested on the premise that any growing social influence in Third World countries must be resisted because socialist gains are always irreversible. Any nation that tried to stay 'neutral' had to face CIA interventions that did not bring anything positive for populations (notably we learn in details about Guatemala, Iran, Congo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cuba). Eisenhower times were the worst, when covert capability of CIA grew massively.

    Fascinating work by Stephen Kinzer can be easily extrapolated to help explain XXI century behavior of Washington. Not much has changed.

    Craig N. Warrenon November 12, 2014

    Making the World Safe for Democracy (and American Business).

    I've learned more about the development of American foreign policy and international relations in the twentieth (and twenty-first) century, especially since WWII, in reading the story of these two scions of an American aristocratic family, who were fully steeped in Calvinistic Protestantism (and it's capitalist ethic) and unquestioningly convinced of American Exceptionalism and it's Manifest Destiny to lead the world and make it safe for democracy and American Business, than I have anywhere else.

    This is more than a biography (or double biography) of two very influential actors in American history, politics and international relations. It is an exposition of the quintessential, archetypical American (WASP) mindset, worldview or psychology that has motivated our collective international behavior over the past six or seven decades.

    Digital Rightson June 14, 2014


    A "How to Not Run Foreign Policy" Primer

    Stephen Kinzer's new book offers a very focused and surgical condemnation of the Dulles brothers foreign policy collaboration in the 1950's that has resulted in a horrid and nightmarish chain of events ever since.

    Allen Dulles at CIA, first as a lead operative for covert missions and then as it's second Director and John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State lead foreign policy during the Eisenhower Presidency. The book goes through six operations to overthrow or destabilize governments through that time; Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Vietnam and the formerly Belgian Congo.

    In each case Kinzer shows the limited lens of cold war anti communism that resulted in the Dulles' tunnel vision where grouping all non-Pro American groups as enemies and communists. He equally addresses their lack of personal curiosity and intellect and preference for slogans and absolutism over analysis or objective debate. All State employees that don't hew the line are regularly fired or transferred to obscure jobs or roles and in place are pro-CIA hardliners.

    It is painful reading. The objective was to both create the world they wanted while limiting the use of US military personnel to achieve those ends. The short cuts and limited world vision have exacted a terrible price. Sadly there is not a place in the world where their activities resulted in any sustainable success and in fact have lead to perhaps millions of deaths and suspicions and misunderstandings for the next 50 to 60 years.

    There is much here that further condemns Eisenhower. In many cases he fully supported and endorsed their plans while pretending not to, fully employing the most cynical of strategies; "plausible deniability".

    Having read the 2012 Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith I was surprised here by the wealth of information that ties Eisenhower more directly to clandestine activities and their purposes. Particularly disappointing is his continues build up for the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba after Kennedy's election but before he took office and will little effort to brief the incoming president. Similarly our Vietnam involvement in the 1950's was so deep already as to make a Kennedy pullout far more difficult.

    There is much here about these issues and the corrupt relationships between the Dulles's prior careers at Sullivan and Cromwell and their support of private interests while working at State and the CIA

    It's grim but the writing is good and the story is well worth knowing.

    C. Ellen Connally, May 22, 2014

    An amazing tale of intrigue and deception

    As we fly in or out of Dulles International Airport, no one gives much thought to the namesake, John Foster Dulles. Sure, he was Secretary of State and some Americans have a vague knowledge of his brother Allan Dulles, director of the CIA and long time super spy and intelligence person. Reading Stephen Kinzer's book, THE BROTHERS reveals the truth about the Dulles brothers and how they changed American and World History.

    At the heart of the story is the unfortunate belief by the brothers that if a country was not totally in agreement with American philosophy they were against us. Any nationalist leaders of a former colonial nation that believed in land reform or neutrality on the international scene had to be evil and must be destroyed. If they were not with us, they had to be communist. This American foreign policy changed the history of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America.

    There is much blame put on President Johnson for the War in Viet Nam. But reading THE BROTHERS shows that the roots of the Viet Nam Conflict go back many years. Likewise, the situation in the Middle East. We have to go back and look at the foreign policy that created the tensions that now exist and the men that shaped that foreign policy.

    Its interesting to note that Kinzer asserts that on the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953, Eisenhower offered the position of Chief Justice to John Foster Dulles. According to Kinzer, Dulles turned it down because he wanted to stay at the State Department. The story has always been that Ike had promised Earl Warren the first seat on the Supreme Court in exchange for his support in the 1952 election - Warren had been out maneuvered by Richard Nixon to get the bid for the vice presidency. How different legal history would have been had John Foster Dulles become Chief Justice!

    Kinzer is a masterful story teller. This book is extremely readable and a must read for understanding the history of American foreign policy and how individual people can change.

    John Berryon March 13, 2014

    What Our History Lessons Didn't Tell Us!

    It has been a long time since an author has captured my interest so quickly and made me question everything I have been taught or have learned about our country. Churchill once said Democracy is the worst kind of government except all others. This comment keeps reverberating around in my mind as I read this book. I am one of those people that have flown into Dulles airport countless times, yet never gave a moments thought as to why, what or even if there was a who to the airports name. I grew up during the cold war and I vividly remember the fear of the Big Russian Bear overtaking us with their form of government and the possibility of nuclear war. It would have never crossed my mind that my very own government aided and abetted in promoting this fear in order for us to gain public moral outrage and support for our endeavors. I kept trying to tell myself this was different times, yet the author pointed out countless times where there were those in the known that were summarily dismissed for having counter opinions.Or leaders from our allies that would not support the Dulles brothers opinions and missions that so disagreed with who we told the world we were. Abraham Lincoln once said "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power". I can think of no better example of failure in handling power than the two Dulles brothers. Not only was I continuously shocked by their gross misuse of power, but I found myself being angry at them as well because of the fear I remember my mother facing as a widower with three children to raise. She needed not to have been this afraid with all the other issues she had to deal with but because of President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers she had to face this fear as well. Whether or not Mr. Kinzer took liberties with the political agenda's of the leaders we either overthrew or attempted to overthrown does not matter to me at all. The fact that we promoted our country as a free democracy yet we were willing to dance with any leader in the world as long as they did exactly what we wanted them to do is so counter to the way I was raised to believe still leaves me reeling.

    Currently in the news President Putin has said in no uncertain terms that the U.S. is responsible for the revolution taking place in the Ukraine. In the past I would have said he is just another Russian bully trying to get his way. After reading The Brothers I now wonder what, if anything, my country had to do with promoting this revolution. I heard our Ukraine Ambassador say almost word for word what I read in this book our ambassador's under the power of The Brother's said back during the cold war. The author tells us that the U.S. with its secret prisons and torture's may have actually invented terrorism.

    This author has opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking and I am so disappointed in opportunities missed and I am so disappointed with our current leaders for having learned apparently nothing from history.

    If you love reading history then please buy this book and ask your family to read it as well. Do I believe everything I read, no not usually, but in this case there are just too many facts that distort my view of who we are to dismiss.

    James Gallen VINE VOICE on March 4, 2014

    An Indepth Study Of American Covert Action

    "The Brothers" tells the story of the brothers Dulles, John Foster and Allen, who drove American foreign policy through much of the 1950s. Grandsons of Secretary of State John Foster and nephews of Secretary of State Robert Lansing, the two grew up in an atmosphere mixing high diplomacy with the spirit of Christian Crusaders. Their path to power was linear. At the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell they represented companies with interests around the world and came to see their clients' interests united with America's. As Foster moved into politics and government service he often brought Allen with him.

    Although expected to be Secretary of State in a Dewey Administration, Foster came in with Dwight Eisenhower in 1953. With Allen as Director of Central Intelligence, they formed a team that searched the world for dragons to slay. Guided by a world view of us, American Christian capitalists, against them, Socialist Evil Doers, they identified their foes and went after them. Among their successes were Guatemalan President Árbenz, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba. TYhose who got away included Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. This book is a study of American covert operations in Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Congo and Cuba. Allen's Bay of Pigs operation is a case study of disaster.

    Author Stephen Kinzer explores the unique situation in which the intelligence gathering agency is also an actor. Throughout he illustrates how the relationship of their leaders enabled two agencies that would normally question and check each other, to work in seamless harmony to carry out the covert operations that both saw as primary instruments of American power. Behind them was President Eisenhower who had used covert operations during World War II and who approved their actions. In the end the author posits that the policies were the President's and the brothers were more his servants than his masters.

    Kinzer portrays the Brothers as men with rigid, narrow outlooks that saw enemies in independent nationalists and conspiracies in disorganized movements. He presents them as two sides of the coin, the molders and reflectors of public opinion. The book is not flattering. It depicts the Dulles brothers as men whose flawed expectations caused many problems for the U.S. and the world by destroying men who America need not have fought. Ultimately he concludes that they were representatives of the people they served and their successes, and failures, are our own. "The Brothers" forces the reader to confront a portion of America's past with its triumphs and shames. Although Kinzer gives his opinions, he provides the facts to permit the reader to form his own. Any serious student of history would do well to delve beneath the surface of our history and appreciate its deep currents and lasting effects.

    [Mar 03, 2017] America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism, ..."
    "... he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American. ..."
    "... The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism. ..."
    "... The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities. ..."
    "... The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq. ..."
    "... " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;" ..."
    "... "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; " ..."
    "... " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;" ..."
    "... I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism is one of the best book on American exceptionalism. Here are some Amazon reviews

    From Siegfried Sutterlin March 21, 2006

    ... While there are incontestable civilizing elements to America's nationalism, there are also dangerous and destructive ingredients, a sort of Hegelian thesis and antithesis theme which places a strong question mark in America's historical theme of exceptionalism.

    Unlike in other post-World War II nations, America's nationalism is permeated by values and religious elements derived mostly from the South and the Southern Baptists, though the fears and panics of the embittered heartland provide additional fuel.

    Lieven's book, among other elements, is also a summation of lots of minor observations--even personal ones he made as a student in the small town of Troy, Alabama--and historical details which reflect the grand evolution of America's nationalism. When he says that "an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism," then he has the support of Mark Twain who said something to the effect that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one! Ditto when he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American.

    Lieven continues with the impact of the Cold War on America's nationalism and then, having always expanded the theme of Bush's foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examines with commendable perspective the complex and very much unadmitted current aspects of the U.S.'s relationships with the Moslems, the Iraq War and the impact of the pro-Israeli lobby. It is the sort of assessment one rarely finds in the U.S. media . He exposes the alienation the U.S. caused among allies and, in particular, the Arabs and the EU.

    Lieven wrote this book with passion and commendable sincerity. Though it comes from a foreigner, its advice would without question serve not only America's interest but also provide a substantial basis for a detached and objective approach to solving the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the satisfaction of all involved before worse deeds and more burdens materialize.

    Tom Munro:

    What this book suggests is that a significant number of Americans have an outlook similar to European countries around 1904. A sense of identification with an idea of nation and a dismissive approach to other countries and cultures. Whilst in Europe the experience of the first and second world wars put paid to nationalism in America it is going strong. In fact Europeans see themselves less as Germans or Frenchmen today than they ever have.

    The reason for American nationalism springs from a pride in American institutions but it also contains a deep resentment that gives it its dynamism . Whilst America as a nation has not lost a war there are a number of reasons for resentment. The South feels that its values are not taken seriously and it is subject to ridicule by the seaboard states. Conservative Christians are concerned about modernism. The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism.

    Of course these things alone are not sufficient. Europeans live in countries that are small geographically. They travel see other countries and are multilingual. Most Americans do not travel and the education they do is strong in ideology and weak in history. It is thus easier for some Americans to develop a rather simple minded view of the world.

    The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities.

    The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq.

    The book is quite good and repeats the message of a number of other books such as "What is wrong with America". Probably there is something to be said for the books central message.

    Keith Wheelock (Skillman, NJ USA)

    A Socratic 'America know thyself': READ IT!, August 13, 2010

    Foreigners, from de Tocqueville and Lord Bryce to Hugh Brogan and The Economist's John Micklethwait and Adrian Woodridge, often see America more clearly than do Americans. In the post-World War II period, R. L. Bruckberger's IMAGES OF AMERICA (1958) and Jean -Jacques Servan-Schreiber's THE AMERICAN CHALLENGE (1967) presented an uplifting picture of America.

    Two generations later, Englishman Anatol Lieven paints a troubling picture of a country that is a far cry from John Winthrop's' "city upon a hill."

    Has America changed so profoundly over the past fifty years or is Mr. Lieven simply highlighting historical cycles that, at least for the moment, had resulted in a near `perfect storm?' His 2004 book has prompted both praise [see Brian Urquhart's Extreme Makeover in the New York Review of Books (February 24, 2005)] and brick bats. This book is not a polemic. Rather, it is a scholarly analysis by a highly regarded author and former The Times (London) correspondent who has lived in various American locales. He has a journalist's acquaintance of many prominent Americans and his source materials are excellent.

    I applaud his courage for exploring the dark cross currents in modern-day America. In the tradition of the Delphic oracle and Socrates, he urges that Americans `know thy self.' The picture he paints should cause thoughtful Americans to shudder. Personally, I found his book of a genre similar to Cullen Murphy's ARE WE ROME? THE FALL OF AN EMPIRE AND THE FATE OF AMERICA.

    I do not consider Mr. Lieven anti-American in his extensive critique of American cross currents. That he wrote this in the full flush of the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 era suggests that he might temper some of his assessments after the course corrections of the Obama administration. My sense is that Mr. Lieven admires many of America's core qualities and that this `tough love' essay is his effort to guide Americans back to their more admirable qualities.

    Mr. Lieven boldly sets forth his book's message in a broad-ranging introduction:

    1. " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;"
    2. "Aspects of American nationalism imperil both the nation's global leadership and its success in the struggle against Islamic terror and revolution;"
    3. "Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli nationalism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U.S. relations with the Muslim world and in fueling terrorism;"
    4. "American imperialists trail America's coat across the whole world while most ordinary Americans are not looking and rely on those same Americans to react with `don't tread on me' nationalist fury when the coat is trodden on;"
    5. "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; "
    6. "America is the home of by far the most deep, widespread and conservative religious belief in the Western world;"
    7. "The relationship between the traditional White Protestant world on one hand and the forces of American economic, demographic, social and cultural change on the other may be compared to the genesis of a hurricane;"
    8. "The religious Right has allied itself solidly with extreme free market forces in the Republican Party although it is precisely the workings of unrestricted American capitalism which are eroding the world the religious conservatives wish to defend;"
    9. "American nationalism is beginning to conflict very seriously with any enlightened, viable or even rational version of American imperialism;"
    10. " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;"
    11. "Nationalism therefore risks undermining precisely those American values which make the nation most admired in the world;" and
    12. "This book...is intended as a reminder of the catastrophes into which nationalism and national messianism led other great countries in the past."

    Mr. Lieven addressed the above points in six well-crafted and thought-provoking chapters that I find persuasive. For some readers Chapter 6, Nationalism, Israel, and the Middle East, may be the most controversial. I am the only living person who has lunched with Gamal Abdel Nasser and David Ben-Gurion in the same week. I have maintained an interest in Arab-Israeli matters ever since. I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do.

    In 1955 American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote,

    "The most prominent and persuasive failing [of political culture] is a certain proneness to fits of moral crusading that would be fatal if they were not sooner or later tempered with a measure of apathy and common sense."

    I am confident that Professor Hofstadter would agree with me that AMERICA RIGHT OR WRONG is a timely and important book.

    [Mar 03, 2017] America primary strategic threat is not North Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump." These last sentences sums up the problem of the War mongering Neo-Cons of Republican Party and their imitators in Democratic Party." Honestly it brings to mind the Jehovah witnesses who call on me to save my soul, in spite of the fact I keep reminding them that I am a Hindu and I believe in Karma and do my best to be good to others. But they don't give up just like the Neo-Cons. ..."
    "... Brooks himself is a wealthy man who lives in a bubble in Washington and nothing he recommends will impact upon him personally in any way. That is what being a neocon is all about. Why should anyone listen to what he has to say? ..."
    "... Putin conspiracy theories regards killing journalists of "Ted" reference have never been proven. I believe the theory that has key wings of the American governing apparatus allowing (not planning but looking the other way) the 9-11-2001 attacks have more credence but I would never comment in a doctrinaire manner that implied policy should revolve around the theory. ..."
    "... If you really want to get down on the man, though, follow Columbia professor Andrew Gellman. Here is a sample of his take on Brooks: http://andrewgelman.com/2015/06/16/the-david-brooks-files-how-many-uncorrected-mistakes-does-it-take-to-be-discredited/ ..."
    "... To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals. ..."
    "... The trend is to Deep State co-option of democracy, its overthrow or unaccountable management, a confluence with democracy-killing Globalism that seeks to make of all governments multinational corporate subordinates. Which corporatism involves democracy, not at all. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Sceptic , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).

    What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again, primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).

    America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.

    Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States' persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often manufactured enemies.

    Cornel Lencar , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:46 am

    Kudos Mr. Bacevich for an exceptional piece!

    Somehow the current situation in the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana, that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes

    The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article.

    Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China, India, Japan, is an overstretch

    Murali , says: February 23, 2017 at 12:16 pm
    "In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump." These last sentences sums up the problem of the War mongering Neo-Cons of Republican Party and their imitators in Democratic Party." Honestly it brings to mind the Jehovah witnesses who call on me to save my soul, in spite of the fact I keep reminding them that I am a Hindu and I believe in Karma and do my best to be good to others. But they don't give up just like the Neo-Cons.
    Phil Giraldi , says: February 23, 2017 at 1:08 pm
    David Brooks is a Canadian whose son served by choice in the Israeli Defense Forces rather than the U.S. military. He passed on playing an active role in the wars that his father so passionately supports. Brooks himself is a wealthy man who lives in a bubble in Washington and nothing he recommends will impact upon him personally in any way. That is what being a neocon is all about. Why should anyone listen to what he has to say?
    Cynthia McLean , says: February 23, 2017 at 2:09 pm
    Brilliant! It's about time someone seriously took down David Brooks & Co's faux innocence narrative of US history. The only point I would add is that this story predates Brooks by a good century and a half. By identifying its national "interests" with those of the Divine, the US gives itself an eternal and perpetual get-out-jail-free-card. It seems not to matter that millions are slaughtered and entire cultures destroyed, as all was all done with the "best of intentions."
    Howard , says: February 23, 2017 at 2:12 pm
    It's a poor kind of child who loves his parents only so long as they are more attractive, richer, and more powerful than other parents, and it is a poor kind of "patriot" who loves his country only so long as it is more admired, richer, and more powerful than other countries.
    David Walkabout , says: February 23, 2017 at 3:37 pm
    Preach it, Brother Andrew!
    No Nation Nell , says: February 23, 2017 at 4:18 pm
    I don't know if it was your intention but your piece made it far more evident that Brooks is a charlatan you've constructed as Trump.
    Howard , says: February 23, 2017 at 4:41 pm
    "In terms of confessional fealty, his true allegiance is not to conservatism as such, but to the Church of America the Redeemer." As though having "confessional fealty" to "conservatism" (which some people indeed have) were any better. Regarding anyone who falls into that category, all I can do is quote one of the great voices of wisdom for our time: "I pity the fool!"
    jon-e , says: February 23, 2017 at 5:48 pm
    'The things Americans do they do not only for themselves, but for all mankind.' Well aint that grand! Brooks must have been intoxicated by his ideas at this point, sounds like Dennis Prager. It would be easy to laugh at such ideas if they weren't so destructive. Excellent piece.
    Ken Hoop , says: February 23, 2017 at 7:14 pm
    Brooks son being in the IDF and Brooks own vehemence to destroy an unthreatening (to the US) enemy of Israel in 2003 is of course of one piece.

    Putin conspiracy theories regards killing journalists of "Ted" reference have never been proven. I believe the theory that has key wings of the American governing apparatus allowing (not planning but looking the other way) the 9-11-2001 attacks have more credence but I would never comment in a doctrinaire manner that implied policy should revolve around the theory.

    Of course Russia has always needed a strong man to stay intact and I couldn't rule out government sympathizers might have taken action on their own, those who were alarmed at Russian liberal journalists fomenting the kind of discord which might suit Victoria Nuland but not Russia staying intact that is.

    Rick Jones , says: February 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
    Although I actively seek out level-headed conservative thinkers/writers, I've never been a fan of David Brooks (probably for reasons related to those put forth in this article).

    If you really want to get down on the man, though, follow Columbia professor Andrew Gellman. Here is a sample of his take on Brooks: http://andrewgelman.com/2015/06/16/the-david-brooks-files-how-many-uncorrected-mistakes-does-it-take-to-be-discredited/

    troopertyree , says: February 23, 2017 at 9:51 pm
    Phil giraldi. if brooks'views are less valid because his son skipped Iraq are bill kristol's and Elliot Cohen's more valid because their sons were u.s.marines in Iraq?
    ctks , says: February 24, 2017 at 2:57 am
    superb essay.
    Gil , says: February 24, 2017 at 6:45 am
    Lies, Andrew. Not "alt-facts." Lies.
    david robbins tien , says: February 24, 2017 at 7:49 am
    To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals.
    connecticut farmer , says: February 24, 2017 at 9:03 am
    Good article. Couldn't agree more. A few minor quibbles though:

    1. Compared to Lippmann, Brooks is an intellectual lightweight. They're not even close.

    2. Though in the context of the article somewhat self-serving, Brooks' criticism of the educational system is valid.

    Otherwise, the author is spot-on.

    Fran Macadam , says: February 24, 2017 at 12:28 pm
    "The global trend has been towards democracy for a century now"

    The trend is to Deep State co-option of democracy, its overthrow or unaccountable management, a confluence with democracy-killing Globalism that seeks to make of all governments multinational corporate subordinates. Which corporatism involves democracy, not at all.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Machiavelli as an economist

    Neoliberal take on Machiavelli... This crazy idea that the ruler is "political entrepreneur" is definitely 100% neoliberal. Other then example of the neoliberal thinking this peace is junk.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Moreover, the ruler is a political entrepreneur: his job is no different from a job of a tailor, carpenter, teacher. He is after selfish objectives which are attained under constraints. The constraints for the ruler are of two kinds: he must somehow acquire the power and he must be able to keep it despite attempts of many people to prevent him from coming to power or trying to overthrow him. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | glineq.blogspot.com

    Machiavelli as an economist

    I was recently rereading The Discourses (as I periodically enjoy doing) and on Sunday I read a review of an interesting new book on Machiavelli -an inexhaustible topic indeed. So I thought of writing down why I, and I would presume many economists, admire Machiavelli (and thus adding to this inexhaustible topic yet another piece).

    There is a clear affinity between economists and political scientists in the Machiavelli tradition. For Machiavelli, the objective of a ruler or a politician is maximization of power in two dimensions, at any point in time and over time. This is exactly the same as maximization of income or utility over time. The ruler is a rational homo politicus in the same way that people, according to economists, are rational homo economicuses .

    Moreover, the ruler is a political entrepreneur: his job is no different from a job of a tailor, carpenter, teacher. He is after selfish objectives which are attained under constraints. The constraints for the ruler are of two kinds: he must somehow acquire the power and he must be able to keep it despite attempts of many people to prevent him from coming to power or trying to overthrow him.

    The ruler therefore must have the famous virtů which is indeed one of the rarest combination of talents. He must fight off domestic foes, foreign enemies or adversaries, and must combine the use of deception, violence and genuine concern for his subjects in the right proportions to be able to stay in power. Machiavelli's politician is like a businessman. There are cases when the businessman will gain more by lying and others when he would gain more by telling the truth. Similarly, the ruler would sometimes gain more through violence, guile and ruse, and at other times through honesty and improvements of his subjects' welfare. The attractiveness of Machiavelli to economists comes also from the fact his ruler always remains a self-interested individual who might do well for his subjects not because he cares about them but because he believes that doing well for them would be ultimately good for himself. In that he is like Adam Smith's baker: he is selling us bread not because he is concerned about our hunger but because he is concerned about his self-interest.

    Throughout centuries Machiavelli has, of course, been accused of condoning many evils. Yet his type of the politician is much more benign and better for the mankind that the types that have normally ruled us. This is because the rulers who actually come to believe they are trying to accomplish good things are most likely to create endless bloodsheds. Most of the killings in history have been motivated by "goodness" and desire to be virtuous. Surely, all religious wars have been such. In recent past, all communist exactions (most notably, the collectivization in the Soviet Union and the Great Leap Forward in China) were motivated by the desire to lift people from their millennial poverty. George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot be explained otherwise since no economic or any other rational objective was ever achieved or was even given serious consideration in the decision to wage the war.

    The most potentially destructive forces today are hidden under the banner of "goodness". Whether this is done hypocritically or because the rulers believe in such professions of "goodness" is immaterial; the latter is even worse. The terms under which such "goodness" is projected to the heathens-"the American exceptionalism,", "the Third Rome", "Hindutva", "the new (old) Caliphate"-are nothing but a self-license to impose own values and beliefs on those who dare disagree with them. Such rulers are the most bloodthirsty because belief in own moral superiority renders them unconcerned with reality.

    Machiavelli's ruler will for sure also engage in deception and cruelty, but his objective will never be to impose one form of government or religion, or more generally a set of beliefs as such, on others. He might decide to impose a new government if he believes that this would increase his dominion. This would be a rational objective, grounded in self-interest. Ideological puritans who want to bring happiness to others would engage in such operations more frequently and fully. Disengaging from them implies for the ideological zealots a destruction of their own intimate world of beliefs; never so with Machiavelli's ruler who would give up the operation once its costs outweigh the benefits.

    The world ruled by politicians who follow own interest like Adam Smith's baker, and leave the rest of the world in peace, may be the best world we can hope for.

    [Feb 27, 2017] Rogue Bureaucrats at Homeland Security Leak Report Critical of Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rogue bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security have leaked an "incomplete" report critical of President Trump's executive order that temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to seven Middle Eastern countries that previous administrations had declared "sponsors of state terrorism" or countries of concern. ..."
    "... "AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations." ..."
    "... A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked draft document, though it did appear to be authored by someone associated with his area of responsibility within DHS. ..."
    Feb 27, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Rogue bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security have leaked an "incomplete" report critical of President Trump's executive order that temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to seven Middle Eastern countries that previous administrations had declared "sponsors of state terrorism" or countries of concern.

    Based on that leaked document, the Associated Press published a story on Friday with the headline "AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations."

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

    A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

    Click here to see the leaked document. ... ... ...

    Last week, Breitbart News reported that David Grannis, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security, is a holdover Obama bureaucrat who President Trump could remove from his position immediately:

    A lifelong Democrat, "[p]rior to joining DHS, Mr. Grannis served as the Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) from 2009 through 2014 and as the Minority Staff Director for 2015. During this time, he served as the principal intelligence advisor to SSCI Chairman Dianne Feinstein and SSCI Members and led the Committee's efforts to produce and enact annual Intelligence Authorization Act from 2010 through 2016 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, according to the DHS website.

    He has spent his career working for partisan Democratic members of Congress:

    He previously served as a staff designee to Senator Feinstein on the SSCI from 2005 until 2009 with a varied portfolio of committee responsibilities. Mr. Grannis worked on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security with responsibilities for intelligence, aviation security, and science and technology from 2003 to 2005 and was Senior Policy Advisor to Representative Jane Harman on matters of national security from 2001 to 2003.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked draft document, though it did appear to be authored by someone associated with his area of responsibility within DHS.

    [Feb 26, 2017] The essence of deep state meme is that color revolution ( nicknamed purple revolution ) is launched against Trump by a coalition of Democratic Party operatives, a faction of

    Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Peter K.... February 25, 2017 at 01:52 PM
    Progressive dems would not have moles in the deep state!
    im1dc -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:10 PM
    Give up the "deep state" meme, total nonsense.
    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 04:43 PM
    So you are denying that "color revolution" methods are now used against Trump administration.

    Nice.

    Compare with

    http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2017/01/trump-vs-cia-djt-forced-to-finish-the-fight-started-by-jfk-2876647.html

    im1dc -> libezkova... , February 25, 2017 at 04:56 PM
    This is what I posted and meant:

    "Give up the "deep state" meme, total nonsense."

    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 06:26 PM
    The essence of "deep state" meme is that "color revolution" ( nicknamed "purple revolution") is launched against Trump by a coalition of Democratic Party operatives, a faction of Wall Street (Globalist Billionaires), a faction of MIC, and powerful factions of three letter agencies (and first of all CIA).

    It's no coincidence that JFK wished he could splinter the CIA 'Into A Thousand Pieces And Scatter It Into The Winds'. And paid the ultimate price for this wish. The CIA coup like JFS assassination that involves removal of Trump from power is what the "deep state meme" currently implies.

    http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/02/may-day-may-day-may-day/

    == quote ==

    The Deep State Conducts a Purple Revolution Against the Trump Administration

    State of the Nation

    There is now a full-scale clandestine revolutionary war being waged against the Trump Administration. The CIA usually attempts a soft coup first at the direction of its masters in Deep State. When that's not successful in effectuating a regime change, they know the territory has been sufficiently softened up for the hot phase of the revolution.

    In these United States of America, that revolution is known as the ongoing but rapidly intensifying Purple Revolution. This seditious revolution began the very day that President Trump won the election on November 8, 2016, if not before.

    KEY POINTS:

    • Deep State will not permit President Trump to govern as POTUS.

    • Deep State uses the CIA and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to run interference at every turn against the Trump Administration

    • Deep State will continue to prosecute the revolution until Trump is removed from power

    • Deep State will eventually attempt to oust the entire Trump Administration

    These preceding bullet points constitute the current NWO globalist agenda being implemented throughout the USA in direct opposition to the Trump Administration. In other words, when Assistant to the President and White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon said that the Mainstream Media (MSM) had morphed into the opposition party, he was speaking literally.

    "Steve Bannon: 'I Could Care Less' About Repairing Relationship with 'Opposition Party' Media" - BREITBART

    A Counter Declaration of War on the Mainstream Media

    There you have it (see preceding link), the whole world is now witnessing an all-out war between the MSM and a sitting POTUS. This unparalleled conflict is not only being fought between the Mainstream Media and the Trump Administration, it's occurring throughout the entire body politic of the USA and beyond.

    The U.S. citizenry saw as never before the complete lack of integrity exhibited by the MSM during the entire 2016 election cycle. Candidate Trump exposed the lying media and avalanche of fake news with his every news conference and campaign stop. In so doing, the whole world is now aware that the MSM can never - EVER - be trusted again.

    Because the MSM is the primary mouthpiece of Deep State, a highly consequential decision was made by its concealed leadership to remove Trump from power with great haste and recklessness lest their Global Control Matrix experience an unprecedented collapse. Deep State knows full well that it's now in its death throes. And that such grave existential threats must be faced before its entire superstructure (and infrastructure) falls into it own footprint.

    This 21st century "War of the Titans" has gotten so hot, in fact, that there is now no turning back for either side. IT WILL BE A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

    Because the Mainstream Media has been outed like never, the most likely outcome is that it will simply be shut down. The public domain is now replete with hard evidence proving treason and sedition perpetrated over many decades by the MSM. Once the American people have reviewed the relevant proof of high treason and crimes against humanity, it will only be a matter of MSM industrywide criminal prosecution.

    Bear in mind that Deep State cannot function to any reasonable degree without total ownership and efficient functioning of the media. The CIA, as well as the other 16 US intelligence agencies, all require the media cover staunchly provided by the MSM. So does the Military-Industrial Complex, as does the much larger Government-Corporate Complex. Therefore, when the MSM finally crashes and burns, so will all of the other major entities which comprise the Deep State.

    "MAY DAY! MAY DAY! MAY DAY!"

    With this critical understanding it ought to be quite obvious that the next 120 days are pivotal for Deep State. Every single day that the Trump Administration is able to consolidate and increase its power, Deep State loses its influence throughout the US government and the world-at-large. Such a crucial attenuation of power will serve as the death knell of the Deep State within the American Republic.

    Hence, there is now a great race against time for both sides of this epic war. The agents of Deep State clearly hope that a soft coup will be successful through a presidential impeachment or by other means. The CIA recently executed such a strategy to 'peacefully' remove Dilma Rousseff, the 36th President of Brazil.

    Make no mistake about it, if a soft coup is not successful, the agents of Deep State will commence the hot phase of their Purple Revolution. Everything points to a massive May Day stealth event. An unrivaled National Mall rally in D.C. attended by the many misguided groups which make up the Democratic Party is already in the works.

    An enormous May Day protest could be used to manufacture a context in which a Maidan type event takes place (remember the violent uprising in Kiev, Ukraine). The Illuminati are notorious for using dates and numerology by which to stage their revolutions and civil wars over centuries (e.g. May Day parades and terror events). Just as the engineered uprising in Kiev was surreptitiously utilized to force Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych into exile, a similar trigger point could be fabricated by which the Bolshevik Left goes really crazy and tries to chase Trump from the White House.

    [Feb 26, 2017] a textbook illustration how color revolution methods are used to discredit the government. To attack Trump Russia is skillfully painted as Big Satan contact with whom is sin

    Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : February 24, 2017 at 08:26 PM

    RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive

    "Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

    Ring any Nixon Bells with anyone???

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html

    "Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

    By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM

    "The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

    Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

    The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

    The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...

    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 26, 2017 at 06:56 AM
    This article is a textbook illustration how "color revolution" methods are used to discredit the government.

    Russia is skillfully painted as "Big Satan" contact with whom is sin for Christians.

    What a despicable scum those presstitutes are...

    [Feb 26, 2017] JFK Was Right: The CIA Should Have Been Splintered Into A Thousand Pieces And Scattered To The Winds

    Feb 26, 2017 | downwithtyranny.blogspot.com

    After Kennedy took office, he was unaware that the CIA, in accord with an OK from President Eisenhower and working with the Belgians, had overseen the gruesome torture and brutal murder of the Congo's popular first prime minister, Patrice Lumumba.

    With Lumumba already dead a month and his body dissolved in sulphuric acid, Kennedy called for him to be reintegrated into the new nation's government. The CIA-- Allen Dulles, who JFK foolishly kept on as director-- hadn't told him that they had carried out Eisenhower 's orders to have him murdered as a commie dupe.

    According to Stephen Kinzer's book about Allen and John Foster Dulles, The Brothers , "Less than two years later, Allen casually admitted that he might have exaggerated the danger Lumumba posed to the West.

    A television interviewer, Eric Severeid, asked him if he had come to believe that any of his covert operations were unnecessary. He named just one. 'I think that we overrated the danger in, let's say, the Congo,' Allen said. 'It looked as though they were going to make a serious attempt at takeover in the Belgian Congo. Well, it didn't work out that way at all. Now maybe they intended to do it, but they didn't find the situation ripe and they beat a pretty hasty retreat.'" There was worse to come.

    Eisenhower had also authorized the assassination of Fidel Castro. When that didn't work out, he authorized a half-assed invasion of Cuban that came to fruition right after Kennedy became president, the Bay of Pigs. As the clownish plot fell apart in the first minutes of the "invasion," the CIA and some elements of the military tried to get Kennedy to U.S. commit Air Force, Naval and Army resources. He thought they were all out of their minds and realized he had made a terrible mistake by keeping Dulles-- who was completely senile by then-- in office. Again, from The Brothers :

    At White House meetings the next day, Kennedy fended off more pleas that he send U.S. forces to support the Bay of Pigs invaders. The strongest came from his chief of naval operations, Admiral Arleigh Burke, who came into the Oval Office late in the evening with an equally agited [CIA official Richard] Bissell.

    "Let me take two jets and shoot down this enemy aircraft," Burke pleaded.

    "No," Kennedy replied. "I don't want to get the United States involved with this."

    "Can I not send in an airstrike?"

    "No."

    "Can we send in a few planes?"

    "No, because they could be identified as United States."

    "Can we paint out their numbers?"

    "No."

    Grasping for options, Burke asked if Kennedy would authorize artillery attacks on Cuban forces from American destroyers. The answer was the same: "No."

    Later that day Kennedy told an aide, "I probably made a mistake keeping Allen Dulles."

    More than one hundred of the invaders had died. Most of the rest were rounded up and imprisoned. For Castro it was a supreme, ecstatic triumph. Kennedy was staggered.

    "How can I have been so stupid?" he wondered aloud.

    Others were equally stunned. Criticism of the CIA, in both the press and Congress, rose to unprecedented intensity. Allen was not spared. The cover story in Time , headlined "The Cuba Disaster," questioned his very concept of intelligence.

    If Allen had not yet confronted the implications of the Bay of Pigs disaster, Kennedy had. In private he cursed "CIA bastards" for luring him into it, and wished he could "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."

    He should have. America would have been much better off. But all he did was fire Dulles, too late to prevent the horrors the Dulles brothers committed in our names in Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Vietnam, not to mention the Congo and Cuba.

    [Feb 25, 2017] We need to support the foreign policy promises which helped Trump win the election such as No more regime change wars and Détente with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Third, neoconservatives, responsible for movement conservatism's liberal-interventionist stance, have been the most vocal critics of Trump's agenda. Trump's almost Jacksonian brand of foreign policy is unlikely to ever win over this small but influential cohort." ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    John Gruskos , says:

    February 24, 2017 at 10:23 am
    Foreign policy is the biggest conflict between Trump's campaign promises and the Republican establishment.

    Trump promised détente with Russia and an end to regime change wars.

    The establishment wants a continuation of the Saudi/Israeli "outside-in" foreign policy: Cold War II and regime change wars.

    The establishment's foreign policy has been a catastrophic failure. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners have died. Trillions of dollars have been wasted. There are millions of refugees, and tens of millions of migrants. Christian communities in the Middle East who survived almost 14 centuries of Muslim rule, who even survived genocidal maniacs such as Tamerlane and The Young Turks, have been destroyed by the neocons. Al-Qaeda and its offshoots such as Nusra Front, ISIS, and AQAP are stronger than ever.

    We need to vociferously support the foreign policy promises which helped Trump win the election: 1. No more regime change wars. 2. Détente with Russia and every other country which wants to help destroy Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, and return peace and stability to the Middle East.

    SteveM , says: February 24, 2017 at 12:42 pm
    Re: "Third, neoconservatives, responsible for movement conservatism's liberal-interventionist stance, have been the most vocal critics of Trump's agenda. Trump's almost Jacksonian brand of foreign policy is unlikely to ever win over this small but influential cohort."

    Agree 100% with John Gruskos. The quote above is already OBE. Trump's inner sanctum has been fully militarized. Rex Tillerson has already been shoved to the corner. The belligerent speech at the UN by Nikki Haley had to have been vetted by the White House. Foreign policy is being run by the Militarists.

    The people banging in Trump's ear on a daily basis now are Military lifers who grew up professionally to view foreign policy as a nail to be pounded down by the War Machine hammer. And they have their favorite targets all picked out: Russia, Iran, China. The Militarists have rolled Trump into compliant Neocon orthodoxy.

    Moreover, to amplify John Gruskos observations, Trump also wants to significantly increase "defense" spending for conventional forces and also take on a massively expensive charge for updating the nuclear weapons inventory. Trump is apparently providing the Neocons with everything that they could want.

    BTW, halving the workforce of the civilian agencies is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of workers and contractors attached to the Security State. Given that Trump is fully invested in the Cult of Military Exceptionalism, the Security State is again immune from a rational benefit-cost assessment and intelligent downsizing of wasteful programs and activities.

    Short of the actual military confrontations that are probably already in the planning stage, this is about as bad as it can get. The Trump Big Sell-Out is nearing completion.

    P.S. the CPAC/Breitbart crowd are screaming wildly for Trump's military initiatives, not realizing that they are yet again being played for chumps by the Neocons and the Security State apparatus.

    Rossbach , says: February 24, 2017 at 2:21 pm
    " we are a nation with an economy, not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being.."

    Unless movement "conservatives" subscribe to the above-stated ideal, they are on no use to the American people and will, hopefully, fade away.

    [Feb 25, 2017] The essence of deep state meme is that color revolution ( nicknamed purple revolution ) is launched against Trump by a coalition of Democratic Party operatives, a faction of Wall Street (Globalist Billionaires), a faction of MIC, and powerful factions of three letter agencies (and first of all CIA).

    Feb 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Peter K.... February 25, 2017 at 01:52 PM , 2017 at 01:52 PM
    Progressive dems would not have moles in the deep state!
    im1dc -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:10 PM
    Give up the "deep state" meme, total nonsense.
    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 04:43 PM
    So you are denying that "color revolution" methods are now used against Trump administration.

    Nice.

    Compare with

    http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2017/01/trump-vs-cia-djt-forced-to-finish-the-fight-started-by-jfk-2876647.html

    im1dc -> libezkova... , February 25, 2017 at 04:56 PM
    This is what I posted and meant:

    "Give up the "deep state" meme, total nonsense."

    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 06:26 PM
    The essence of "deep state" meme is that "color revolution" ( nicknamed "purple revolution") is launched against Trump by a coalition of Democratic Party operatives, a faction of Wall Street (Globalist Billionaires), a faction of MIC, and powerful factions of three letter agencies (and first of all CIA).

    It's no coincidence that JFK wished he could splinter the CIA 'Into A Thousand Pieces And Scatter It Into The Winds'. And paid the ultimate price for this wish. The CIA coup like JFS assassination that involves removal of Trump from power is what the "deep state meme" currently implies.

    http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/02/may-day-may-day-may-day/

    == quote ==

    The Deep State Conducts a Purple Revolution Against the Trump Administration

    State of the Nation

    There is now a full-scale clandestine revolutionary war being waged against the Trump Administration. The CIA usually attempts a soft coup first at the direction of its masters in Deep State. When that's not successful in effectuating a regime change, they know the territory has been sufficiently softened up for the hot phase of the revolution.

    In these United States of America, that revolution is known as the ongoing but rapidly intensifying Purple Revolution. This seditious revolution began the very day that President Trump won the election on November 8, 2016, if not before.

    KEY POINTS:

    • Deep State will not permit President Trump to govern as POTUS.

    • Deep State uses the CIA and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to run interference at every turn against the Trump Administration

    • Deep State will continue to prosecute the revolution until Trump is removed from power

    • Deep State will eventually attempt to oust the entire Trump Administration

    These preceding bullet points constitute the current NWO globalist agenda being implemented throughout the USA in direct opposition to the Trump Administration. In other words, when Assistant to the President and White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon said that the Mainstream Media (MSM) had morphed into the opposition party, he was speaking literally.

    "Steve Bannon: 'I Could Care Less' About Repairing Relationship with 'Opposition Party' Media" - BREITBART

    A Counter Declaration of War on the Mainstream Media

    There you have it (see preceding link), the whole world is now witnessing an all-out war between the MSM and a sitting POTUS. This unparalleled conflict is not only being fought between the Mainstream Media and the Trump Administration, it's occurring throughout the entire body politic of the USA and beyond.

    The U.S. citizenry saw as never before the complete lack of integrity exhibited by the MSM during the entire 2016 election cycle. Candidate Trump exposed the lying media and avalanche of fake news with his every news conference and campaign stop. In so doing, the whole world is now aware that the MSM can never - EVER - be trusted again.

    Because the MSM is the primary mouthpiece of Deep State, a highly consequential decision was made by its concealed leadership to remove Trump from power with great haste and recklessness lest their Global Control Matrix experience an unprecedented collapse. Deep State knows full well that it's now in its death throes. And that such grave existential threats must be faced before its entire superstructure (and infrastructure) falls into it own footprint.

    This 21st century "War of the Titans" has gotten so hot, in fact, that there is now no turning back for either side. IT WILL BE A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

    Because the Mainstream Media has been outed like never, the most likely outcome is that it will simply be shut down. The public domain is now replete with hard evidence proving treason and sedition perpetrated over many decades by the MSM. Once the American people have reviewed the relevant proof of high treason and crimes against humanity, it will only be a matter of MSM industrywide criminal prosecution.

    Bear in mind that Deep State cannot function to any reasonable degree without total ownership and efficient functioning of the media. The CIA, as well as the other 16 US intelligence agencies, all require the media cover staunchly provided by the MSM. So does the Military-Industrial Complex, as does the much larger Government-Corporate Complex. Therefore, when the MSM finally crashes and burns, so will all of the other major entities which comprise the Deep State.

    "MAY DAY! MAY DAY! MAY DAY!"

    With this critical understanding it ought to be quite obvious that the next 120 days are pivotal for Deep State. Every single day that the Trump Administration is able to consolidate and increase its power, Deep State loses its influence throughout the US government and the world-at-large. Such a crucial attenuation of power will serve as the death knell of the Deep State within the American Republic.

    Hence, there is now a great race against time for both sides of this epic war. The agents of Deep State clearly hope that a soft coup will be successful through a presidential impeachment or by other means. The CIA recently executed such a strategy to 'peacefully' remove Dilma Rousseff, the 36th President of Brazil.

    Make no mistake about it, if a soft coup is not successful, the agents of Deep State will commence the hot phase of their Purple Revolution. Everything points to a massive May Day stealth event. An unrivaled National Mall rally in D.C. attended by the many misguided groups which make up the Democratic Party is already in the works.

    An enormous May Day protest could be used to manufacture a context in which a Maidan type event takes place (remember the violent uprising in Kiev, Ukraine). The Illuminati are notorious for using dates and numerology by which to stage their revolutions and civil wars over centuries (e.g. May Day parades and terror events). Just as the engineered uprising in Kiev was surreptitiously utilized to force Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych into exile, a similar trigger point could be fabricated by which the Bolshevik Left goes really crazy and tries to chase Trump from the White House.

    [Feb 25, 2017] The Deep State Gets a Scalp

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power " ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Michael Flynn was a seriously dangerous man, and I am very relieved that he will no longer be in a position of power. But Damon Linker is absolutely right that the way he was brought down should worry everyone who cares about the health of American democracy:

    Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination ) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

    Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press - mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say, "someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!" It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

    The Eli Lake article that Linker links to is worth reading in full, but I'll pull out a key section here:

    The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

    Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."

    Nunes said he was going to bring this up with the FBI, and ask the agency to investigate the leak and find out whether Flynn himself is a target of a law enforcement investigation. The Washington Post reported last month that Flynn was not the target of an FBI probe.

    The background here is important. Three people once affiliated with Trump's presidential campaign - Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone - are being investigated by the FBI and the intelligence community for their contacts with the Russian government. This is part of a wider inquiry into Russia's role in hacking and distributing emails of leading Democrats before the election.

    Flynn himself traveled in 2015 to Russia to attend a conference put on by the country's propaganda network, RT. He has acknowledged he was paid through his speaker's bureau for his appearance. That doesn't look good, but it's also not illegal in and of itself. All of this is to say there are many unanswered questions about Trump's and his administration's ties to Russia.

    But that's all these allegations are at this point: unanswered questions. It's possible that Flynn has more ties to Russia that he had kept from the public and his colleagues. It's also possible that a group of national security bureaucrats and former Obama officials are selectively leaking highly sensitive law enforcement information to undermine the elected government.

    Here's the thing: I understand why the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies are behaving the way they are. It's not just that they are opposed to Trump's policies, or that they have personal reasons to hate Flynn or Bannon or anybody else on the Trump team. It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power or, at best, extremely senior people (including the President himself) who flagrantly disregard basic security precautions:

    For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president's eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

    Since NSA provides something like 80 percent of the actionable intelligence in our government, what's being kept from the White House may be very significant indeed. However, such concerns are widely shared across the IC, and NSA doesn't appear to be the only agency withholding intelligence from the administration out of security fears.

    What's going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that "since January 20, we've assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM," meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. "There's not much the Russians don't know at this point," the official added in wry frustration.

    None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow wasn't something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin, and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution and concern.

    When the press first started hyperventilating about Russia, I wrote a column about how we all needed to calm down - because my concern was that the focus was misplaced, because Russia isn't the problem:

    Russia's alleged actions are entirely unsurprising and far from unprecedented . They are not only the kind of thing that Russia has done before, they are the kind of thing that we have done before - including in Russia's neighborhood . Russia's actions may well deserve a response - but the most important response would be to make cyber security a significantly higher priority. They certainly don't merit panic about Russian intentions, or about the fragility of American institutions.

    By contrast, the opacity of Trump's financial relationships does remain a serious problem, and the possibility that he is personally subject to Russian "influence" because of financial liabilities held by Russian banks could taint any attempt to improve relations between our countries. And of course if the Trump campaign actually coordinated with Russia on dirty tricks, that would be a crime amply deserving investigation, and potentially impeachment.

    But at this point, there is no evidence at all of that kind of wrongdoing. That ought to matter. And it ought to be possible to investigate the possibility of corruption or criminal collusion without indulging in scaremongering about the Russian threat. Indeed, advocates of a friendlier relationship with Russia should be the first to call for such scrutiny - because an opening to Russia will only be durable if the American people believe that it rests on a solid institutional foundation and genuine mutual interest.

    Meanwhile, those arguing that Russia undermined the integrity of the American electoral system need to take a good look in the mirror. Nothing Russia did or didn't do can come close to the damage that will potentially be done by exaggerating the extent and impact of that influence, much less creating a constitutional crisis in response.

    ... ... ...

    SteveM , says: February 14, 2017 at 6:26 pm
    Re: "It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power "

    Foreign power!? That's rich! A U.S. government who plays the lapdog to the Israelis and kowtows to the ruthless slave-holders and head choppers in the Middle East. And fronted by a sclerotic, completely coöpted MSM.

    And have Millman or the others who take backhanded swipes at RT ever actually watched any of its programming? The American produced RT programs (4 or 5 hours a night) have brutally attacked Trump non-stop, before, during and after the election.

    RT Moscow programs SophieCo and World's Apart regularly have guests that represent conventional (i.e., Russia hating) American/European points of view. When is the last time that a major American media outlet interviewed a rational thoughtful Russian whose views are aligned with the Russian government, e.g. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova?

    And RT has critically challenged the completely biased propaganda coming out of Syria by the Western MSM. There is a lot happening behind the Syrian jihadist curtain that the U.S. government and the toady MSM don't want us to see. If RT does not pose the questions in the West, who will?

    Is RT fundamentally biased? Certainly and sometimes crudely so. But that bias was the direct result of the clumsy, stupid coup that the U.S. fronted by Obama vulgarian stooge Victoria Nuland engineered in Ukraine.

    This holier than thou schtick that the Left is drumming up against Trump and Russia when the U.S. has been guilty of similar shenanigans and outright criminality for decades is completely bogus.

    This essay is Fake News writ large.

    Nelson , says: February 14, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

    And there is really only one way to avoid such a crisis: for Congress to step up and begin the necessary investigations of the Trump administration.

    Agreed. One of this country's main problems in recent history is congress abdicating its duties. This neglect leaves more power, and more potential misuse of power, in the hands of the executive. The only way we can get back to a sense of normal democracy is for Congress to take more responsibility for this country's actions.

    Jeremy 2 , says: February 14, 2017 at 8:37 pm
    @SteveM

    Flynn himself plays lapdog to the Israelis and kowtows to the ruthless slave-owners and the head-choppers in the Middle East more than anyone, especially by supporting war/regime change in Iran. It's a good thing he's gone and the Trump administration is better for it (now if only Trump could stop sucking up to Bibi).

    As for "the Left", which part of the Left are you referring to? The "tankie" leftists still love Putin themselves.

    SteveM , says: February 14, 2017 at 9:37 pm
    Re: Jeremy 2:

    Flynn is indeed a war-monger nut-job. The sad thing is that his apparent replacement is also another war-monger nut-job, retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward who is a greaser for delivering weapons systems from American Merchant of Death Lockheed Martin to the slave-holding, head-chopping Gulf States. The same anti-Iranian Gulf States that are pulverizing Yemen.

    It's good to be him

    Do any of these Bush/Obama era Pentagon Brass Meatballs have documented evidence that they actually reported back the huge Clusterf*ck that is the Middle Eastern quagmire that has cost the taxpayers TRILLIONS?

    In other words, Harward is probably just another go-along to get-along militarist crony who never reported back what he actually saw. I.e., huge amounts of American Green being flushed down the toilet. And as always, what the heck? It ain't his money

    Looks like more ready, fire, aim shenanigans from the Trump Neocon cabal once this latest Navy Boy "Warrior-Hero" comes aboard to oversee the perpetual American Global Cop stupidity.

    MEexpert , February 14, 2017 at 11:58 pm
    Does any one see a regime change operation by the intelligence community? There are still quite a few Victoria Nulands in the government.

    I think Trump needs to drain the DC swamp pretty quick before he is completely consumed by it.

    anon , says: February 15, 2017 at 6:33 am
    Would anyone have demanded an investigation of, say, high-level connections to Saudi Arabia? Would anyone have characterized Huma Abedin as "Saudi Arabia having ears inside the WH", or Dennis Ross as "Israel having ears inside the WH"? It's commentary malpractice to write a piece like this and not at least discuss the weird double standard applied to Russia vs other foreign powers.
    Fran Macadam , says: February 15, 2017 at 7:04 am
    So Noah Millman wants to bring down the elected Trump Presidency, and sides with the Deep State patriots? That's what impression this leaves me with. A whole lot of people don't have much love for voting and democracy anymore. And this mad Russophobia is MyCarthy Dementia 2.0.

    Motives do matter when considering how to frame a story based on leaks. For instance, Snowden's motives were highly important when evaluating his disclosures, which is both why the government and his advocates were so at pains to characterize them either good or bad. They and others have spent at least as much effort as publishing the contents, putting both them and the consequences in context.

    The control of information is an exercise in power. It would be foolish not to consider what the leaker intends to accomplish by selectively leaking, whether or not the exercise is one of manipulation of public opinion rather than informing the public, and whether or not it is actually in service of the truth without that context.

    A consequence of the full take of collect it all in regards to everyone's communication is that such a trove about everyone's lives makes a universal blackmail possible by Deep State actors, a kind of veto power over all lives and all politics.

    I am cautious about this particular opinion, because it treads very close to political biases to have "gotten" Flynn whom he deeply disagreed with, leading him to err on the side of praising politicized secret intelligence state leakers who have zero interest, unlike Snowden, in public accountability.

    John , says: February 15, 2017 at 7:18 am
    With gerrymandering and dark money, thanks to Citizen's United, and a continuing dilution of representation thanks to the fixed number of Congressional reps in a growing population, Congress is unable to/given up its role as a check to the power of the Executive branch. Civilian soldiers in the bureaucracy are now making choices, right or wrong, to salvage what's left of the Republic.
    Lllurker , says: February 15, 2017 at 8:06 am
    Sadly we cannot trust senators and congressmen to place duty above partisanship, or more to the point, country above partisanship. So with possible traitors in the White House and congress controlled by the same party, the leakers only real option is to leak.

    We need the leakers to keep at it, and the press to keep digging, so that together they can empower the public to do the right thing, as this will not get a proper investigation unless the public forces it. And even then the GOP is likely to try to hide as much of it as they can behind the curtain of "national security."

    As I understand it those who are doing the leaking are risking both careers and liberty to do so. I hope for the country's sake they can get everything else they have out to the press before they can be shut down.

    The aspects of this that fall outside the executive branch should be considered more of a "partisanship crisis" than a constitutional crisis. Maybe down the line the public can force a couple of follow up investigations: "What did Jason Chaffetz know and when did he know it." Maybe Comey too.

    simon94022 , says: February 15, 2017 at 3:59 pm
    I am glad Flynn is gone mainly because his views on Iran were nuts and dangerous. His apparent support for rapprochement with Russia is a point in his favor.

    The real problem with the military-security-industrial complex targeting an executive branch figure who threatens our national interests is that it is NOT the Deep State's job to determine what our national interests are.

    In reality, it is very much in the national interest of the United States to have normal, correct state-to-state relations with both Russia and Iran, cooperating with each of them in the many areas where our interests converge, and not demonizing or destabilizing either of those regimes.

    The Deep State is obsessed with demonizing both Iran and Russia, meanwhile propagating the fantastic lie that the militant Sunni Muslim regimes and militias around the Middle East are our "moderates" or even our "allies." This insanity needs to stop, and the elected branches of government have every right and duty to stop it.

    Ken Zaretzke , says: February 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm
    Yesterday Bill Kristol tweeted that "if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state." This confirms everything Shadia Drury says about the East Coast Straussians. If you haven't read her book–the first book-length critique of the ideas of Leo Strauss–do so now if you want to hit back against the deep state and its "deep" Straussianism.

    [Feb 25, 2017] The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US Deep State

    No real conflict emerged. The President proved to be a puppet of the Deep State.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
    "... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
    "... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
    "... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
    "... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
    "... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    ... ... ...

    The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old one. Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence. The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.

    The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation. It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives, something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.

    Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.

    Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy, using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense, the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign- policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.

    Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives, setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.

    The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.

    This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:

    "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?"

    What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".

    In an article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations. In a passage I wrote:

    "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.

    In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra front".

    The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya".

    During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside. The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.

    Conclusions and future questions

    There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences, bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.

    The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay the price.

    Mustafa Kemal , Feb 21, 2017 11:21 PM

    " What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."

    This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not find the gumption to continue reading.

    Who could write something like that?

    BarnacleBill , Feb 21, 2017 11:29 PM

    The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of view.

    *** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll back the spectre of "1984".

    [Feb 25, 2017] The American Disease: I Deserve To Get Away With Anything Everything

    Notable quotes:
    "... entitlement and power means you never have to apologize for anything ..."
    "... What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation . ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Here's the American Disease in a nutshell: entitlement and power means you never have to apologize for anything. Public relations might require a grudging, insincere quasi-apology, but the person with power can't evince humility or shame--he or she doesn't have any.

    What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation .

    [Feb 25, 2017] Iraq Is It Oil naked capitalism

    Feb 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Arthur MacEwan. Originally published at Triple Crisis

    The Issue Revisited

    Around the time that the United States invaded Iraq, 14 years ago, I was in an auditorium at the University of Massachusetts Boston to hear then-Senator John Kerry try to justify the action. As he got into his speech, a loud, slow, calm voice came from the back of the room: "O – I – L." Kerry tried to ignore the comment. But, again and again, "O – I – L." Kerry simply went on with his prepared speech. The speaker from the back of the room did not continue long, but he had succeeded in determining the tenor of the day.

    Looking back on U.S. involvement in the Iraq, it appears to have been largely a failure. Iraq, it turned out, had no "weapons of mass destruction," but this original rationalization for invasion offered by the U.S. government was soon replaced by the goal of "regime change" and the creation of a "democratic Iraq." The regime was changed, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was captured and executed. But it would be very had to claim that a democratic Iraq either exists or is in the making-to say nothing of the rise of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and the general destabilization in the Middle East, both of which the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped propel.

    Yet, perhaps on another scale, the invasion would register as at least a partial success. This is the scale of O – I – L

    The Profits from Oil

    At the time of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an article for Dollars & Sense titled "Is It Oil?" (available online here ). I argued that, while the invasion may have had multiple motives, oil-or more precisely, profit from oil-was an important factor. Iraq, then and now, has huge proven oil reserves, not in the same league as Saudi Arabia, but in group of oil producing countries just behind the Saudis. It might appear, then, that the United States wanted access to Iraqi oil in order to meet the needs of our highly oil-dependent lifestyles in this country. After all, the United States today, with just over 4% of the world's population, accounts for 20% of the world's annual oil use; China, with around 20% of the world's population is a distant second in global oil use, at 13%. Even after opening new reserves in recent years, U.S. proven reserves amount to only 3% of the world total.

    Except in extreme circumstances, however, access to oil is not a major problem for this county. And it was not in 2003. As I pointed out back then, the United States bought 284 million barrels of oil from Iraq in 2001, about 7% of U.S. imports, even while the two countries were in a virtual state of war. In 2015, only 30% as much oil came to the United States from Iraq, amounting to just 2.4% of total U.S. oil imports. Further, in 2015, while the United States has had extremely hostile relations with Venezuela, 24% of U.S. oil imports came from that country's nationalized oil industry. It would seem that, in the realm of commerce, bad political relations between buyers and sellers are not necessarily an obstacle.

    For the U.S. government, the Iraq oil problem was not so much access, in the sense of meeting U.S. oil needs, as the fact that U.S. firms had been frozen out of Iraq since the country's oil industry was nationalized in 1972. They and the other oil "majors" based in U.S.-allied countries were not getting a share of the profits that were generated from the exploitation of Iraqi oil. Profits from oil exploitation come not only to the oil companies-ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, and the other industry "majors"-but also to the companies that supply and operate equipment, drill wells, and provide other services that bring the oil out of the ground and to consumers around the world-for example, the U.S. firms Halliburton, Emerson, Baker Hughes, and others. They were also not getting a share of the Iraqi oil action. (Actually, when vice president to be Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, in the period before the invasion, the company managed to undertake some operations in Iraq through a subsidiary, in spite of federal restrictions preventing U.S. firms from doing business in Iraq.)

    After the Troops

    In the aftermath of the invasion and since most U.S. troops have been withdrawn, things have changed. "Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, U.S. and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera in 2012. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

    From the perspective of U.S. firms the picture is mixed. Firms based in Russia and China have developed operations in Iraq, and even an Indonesian-based firm is involved. Still, ExxonMobil (see box) has established a significant stake in Iraq, having obtained leases on approximately 900,000 onshore acres and by the end of 2013 had developed several wells in Iraq's West Qurna field. Exxon also has agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq to explore for oil. Chevron holds an 80% stake and is the operator of the Qara Dagh block in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, but as of mid-2014 the project was still in the exploratory phase and there was no production. No other U.S. oil companies have developed operations in Iraq. The UK-headquartered BP (formerly British Petroleum) and the Netherlands-headquartered Shell, however, are also significantly engaged in Iraq.

    While data are limited on the operations of U.S. and other oil service firms in Iraq, they seem to have done well. For example, according to a 2011 New York Times article:

    The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International [founded in Texas, now incorporated in Switzerland] and Schlumberger [based in France] already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more. "Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors," Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. "There will be an enormous scale of investment."

    The Right to Access

    While U.S. oil companies and oil service firms-as well as firms from other countries-are engaged in Iraq, they and their U.S. government supporters have not gained the full legal rights they would desire. In 2007, the U.S. government pressed the Iraqi government to pass the "Iraq Hydrocarbons Law." The law would, among other things, take the majority of Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi government and assure the right of foreign firms to control much of the oil for decades to come. The law, however, has never been enacted, first due to general opposition to a reversal the 1972 nationalization of the industry, and recently due to continuing disputes between the government in Baghdad and the government of the Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq.

    U.S. foreign policy, as I elaborated in the 2003 article, has long been designed not simply to protect U.S.-based firms in their international operations, but to establish the right of the firms to access and security wherever around the world. Oil firms have been especially important in promoting and gaining from this right, but firms from finance to pharmaceuticals and many others have been beneficiaries and promoters of the policy.

    Whatever else, as the Iraq and Middle East experience has demonstrated, this right comes at a high cost. The best estimate of the financial cost to the United States of the war in Iraq is $3 trillion. Between the 2003 invasion and early 2017, U.S. military forces suffered 4,505 fatalities in the war, and allied forces another 321. And, of course, most of all Iraqi deaths: estimates of the number of Iraqis killed range between 200,000 and 500,000.

    Altandmain , February 25, 2017 at 1:03 am

    Basically the US seems to have invaded for the enrichment of the multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of the world. Americans will pay a monetary price, but worse many have died and many more have lost their lives.

    Even if it had gone to plan, the average American would not have benefited. They would have paid the costs for war. Let us face the reality. There was no noble intent in invading Iraq. It was all a lie.

    The ridiculousness of Paul Wolfowitz and his claim that invading Iraq could be paid for through its oil revenue has become apparent. It has destroyed the stability of the area. We should nor idealize Saddam, who was a horrible dictator, but the idea that the US is going to be able to invade and impose its will was foolish.

    There was never any need to invade Iraq. If oil was the goal, Washington DC could easily have lifted the sanctions around Iraq. I doubt that the neoconservatives believed that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons of destruction or had anything to do with the 9-11-2001 attacks, which is why they claimed they invaded.

    If this madness does not stop, it will do much more damage, and like the Soviet Union, bankrupt the US.

    Mike , February 25, 2017 at 1:06 am

    Great overview of the real tragedy of Iraq-US companies having to share the spoils.

    It reminds me of Russia: the US seethes because Putin is the one looting the country and not them.

    Back in the 90s President Clinton issued countless demands to Yeltsin about oil pipelines and output increases, showing great impatience when the Russians dared to suggest environmental impact studies. (See the linked UPI article.) If only Putin would have let us frack the Kremlin he'd be our best friend!

    http://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/09/28/Clinton-presses-Yeltsin-on-oil-deals/6188780724800/

    [Feb 22, 2017] Its Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away

    Notable quotes:
    "... The final stage of a star, going into stellar death, is the supernova – the core ceases producing energy, and the surrounding layers collapse inward at the loss of pressure. The release of energy as it explodes is a dazzling flare that can outshine a galaxy for a brief time, a few days. Then, burnout; the star becomes a neutron star, or a black hole. ..."
    "... In its increasingly erratic behavior, its insistence on its own "specialness" and exceptionalism, its stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality – instead remaining determined to "shape the narrative" and replace it with an alternate and fabricated reality – are we seeing the beginning of core collapse and the onset of burnout? ..."
    "... The U.S. workforce has experienced downward pressure on wages and benefits over recent decades. Median and average wages have stagnated for thirty years, while the availability and quality of health insurance and pension benefits have substantially eroded. By contrast, the concentration of wealth at the top of U.S. society has skyrocketed, to levels unseen since the 1920s." ..."
    "... "It's fair to say that America has the best cards when you look at other countries around the world. There's no other country you'd rather be than the United States. Nobody can compete with us when we're making the right decisions." ..."
    "... The golden age of broad-based economic expansion and opportunity for Americans was the quarter century after World War II. Large parts of the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan had been destroyed in the war. The U.S. manufacturing sector, scaled up for wartime production, was left unscathed and ready to satisfy demand in both domestic and hungry world markets, with purchases in the latter financed in part by the Marshall Plan ..."
    "... While the United States continues to be the only military superpower, the economic world has become decidedly multipolar ..."
    Jul 31, 2015 | marknesop

    Out of the blue
    and into the black
    You pay for this,
    but they give you that
    And once you're gone,
    you can't come back

    Neil Young, from "Into The Black"

    The final stage of a star, going into stellar death, is the supernova – the core ceases producing energy, and the surrounding layers collapse inward at the loss of pressure. The release of energy as it explodes is a dazzling flare that can outshine a galaxy for a brief time, a few days. Then, burnout; the star becomes a neutron star, or a black hole.

    What is happening to the United States of America?

    In its increasingly erratic behavior, its insistence on its own "specialness" and exceptionalism, its stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality – instead remaining determined to "shape the narrative" and replace it with an alternate and fabricated reality – are we seeing the beginning of core collapse and the onset of burnout?

    All empires eventually collapse upon themselves, what sustains them at their core no longer capable of projecting power outward as they succumb to overreach and a misplaced belief in their own invincibility. Is this process already underway?

    More and more signs say yes, it is. Not just internationally, where respect for America has slipped steadily, but domestically, where Americans themselves gloomily offer their belief, in polling results, that the world is getting fed up with the USA throwing its weight around. A Rasmussen poll released a year ago suggests only 23 percent of Americans polled believe America is "on the right track". The percentage of working-age Americans who are part of the U.S. workforce is at its lowest level since 1978, if you can believe it, with one in every three working-age Americans unemployed. In 2011, American debt passed 100% of GDP.

    According to The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

    "The U.S. workforce has experienced downward pressure on wages and benefits over recent decades. Median and average wages have stagnated for thirty years, while the availability and quality of health insurance and pension benefits have substantially eroded. By contrast, the concentration of wealth at the top of U.S. society has skyrocketed, to levels unseen since the 1920s."

    Well, the reference cited earlier suggests President Obama does not know that. Because he says, "It's fair to say that America has the best cards when you look at other countries around the world. There's no other country you'd rather be than the United States. Nobody can compete with us when we're making the right decisions." I suppose that's not exactly a big fat lie, but it is curious that he would say nobody can compete with America "when we're making the right decisions" when he is umm the decision-maker for America. Because clearly the "right decisions" have not been made in America for quite a long time. An IMF working paper entitled ""An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?" forecast that U.S. government debt would rise above 400% of GDP by 2050, owing heavily to unfunded liabilities such as Social Security. Despite the fact that economic projections so far out are little more than informed guesses relying on everything staying the same as it is now, it did not remain for long in the public domain.

    Ms. Polaski, author of the Carnegie document, goes on to say,

    "The golden age of broad-based economic expansion and opportunity for Americans was the quarter century after World War II. Large parts of the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan had been destroyed in the war. The U.S. manufacturing sector, scaled up for wartime production, was left unscathed and ready to satisfy demand in both domestic and hungry world markets, with purchases in the latter financed in part by the Marshall Plan."

    Sounds almost like another world war would be just what the doctor ordered as far as a return to American expansion of influence and a return to prosperity go, doesn't it? Is that why the USA is pushing Europe so hard to accept further sacrifices to its own economic prosperity – to kick-start another massive land war in Europe, between NATO and Russia, fought over Ukraine?

    In a word, no. Because there is no possibility of a repeat of the golden age of economic expansion for Americans, at least not based on the same model, because American manufacturing has been outsourced to a fare-thee-well, and is moribund in the land of its birth. Some fast talkers will tell you the death of American manufacturing is liberal fearmongering, that American manufacturing has had one of its best (pick your window) months ever – but they are just tap-dancing you past the graveyard, because manufacturing's share of the American economy had shrunk from 28.5% in its postwar heyday to only 12% by 2010. Doing great in a sector that has shrunk by more than half is not a gain.

    America is making big with the bellicose war talk, strutting and pounding its chest and blabbering crazy talk about arming Ukraine as its proxy against Russia. But it is not only Russia which is the issue – a developing threat is the lifting of sanctions on Iran. It can hardly have escaped notice (I know some of my commenters have highlighted it) that Iran's acceptance back into the western fold, while it might be a welcome boon to a Europe urgently seeking gas supplies that do not originate in Russia, is a source of increasing alarm to America's conjoined little brother, Israel. In a moment of unintentional comedy last year, Israel's always-entertaining leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, actually warned world leaders not to ease up on Iran in the hope of winning its cooperation in the fight against Islamic State (or ISIS or ISIL or whatever the acronym-of-the-moment is) because Iran was fighting against IS "out of their own interest"!!! Said the leader of the wealthy country that benefits from an annual $3.1 Billion in foreign aid from the USA. More ominous was the open letter to the Republic of Iran from 47 Republican senators, warning Iran's leaders that any agreement negotiated between Obama and Iran without Congressional approval would be considered merely an executive agreement that would cease its effect as soon as Obama is out of office. Mild-mannered lunatic Lindsey Graham went even further off the map, using a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to press U.S. SecDef Ashton Carter on who would win a war between the United States and Iran. Atlantic Magazine points out that the USA was sure of winning the war with Iraq, as well, and it did. Sort of. But it cost Trillions with a capital "T" and thousands of dead Americans, and resulted in what is about as similar to a prosperous western-oriented market democracy as an igloo is like a brush fire. America cannot afford any more victories like that one, yet it seems uncommonly eager to fight everyone on the planet who will not kneel to it and let it be the boss.

    Which brings us to its loyal ally, Europe. American pressure turned off the sale of two MISTRAL Assault Carriers to Russia by France, and now France is on the hook for about €1.2 Billion and has a pair of white-elephant warships it will probably sink – as the cheapest option – without their ever having been delivered to the customer. Paris expects to fund the penalty from €2 Billion Poland will pay for French helicopters. France will see a return of less than €800 million in compensation for €2 Billion worth of aircraft sales and will probably have to sink two brand-new warships, all because of American pressure. And that's on the heels of French fury in 2013, when Snowden's disclosures revealed the NSA had "collected" more than 70 million French phone calls just in one 30-day period. Rising anti-Americanism in Germany is the more disconcerting – for American policymakers – in that it is becoming mainstream. After a half-decade of the most severe austerity budget in Britain since World War II, Britons have suffered the worst decline in real wages since Victorian times. That last is not Washington's fault, of course; but it bodes ill for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the mammoth free-trade deal Washington is trying to get signed with Europe. British shopkeepers are not going to be thrilled with the concept of opening their markets to American goods so that Americans can get richer while British businesses go under because they can't compete.

    And they can't; the European Commission – which is fast evolving into a de facto Government Of Europe – predicts that without comprehensive economic reforms, living standards in the Eurozone will be lower, relative to those in the USA, in 2025 than they were in the mid-1960's.

    Just ponder that for a moment. Living standards, in Europe, when your children are the workforce, lower than they were when your parents were the workforce. That's quite an accomplishment, when you think about it. Now consider that your good friends in Washington want to erode your living standards further by using you as a pawn in the Great Game against Russia, which Washington must stop at all costs.

    Which brings us full circle back to Washington, and the coming leadership race on the staggering deathstar America has become. Right now – and I'm well aware things can change quickly in a presidential election, you only have to say the wrong thing to go from front-runner to done-like-dinner, but just as a snapshot of the moment – it's a race between BusinessTwit Donald Trump and send-in-the-Army warhag Hillary Clinton. Just think about that for a minute – the finest America has to offer, its glittering gladiators in the arena of public service, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. What has happened to you, America?

    Another clue is tucked away in Ms. Polaski's excellent research work on American living standards: "While the United States continues to be the only military superpower, the economic world has become decidedly multipolar".

    Washington would like to send in the dollar to beat the shit out of all comers, the way it has become used to doing since Bretton Woods. But it doesn't work any more – Washington is up against the BRICS now, an economic bloc which numbers nearly half of the world's population, a combined nominal GDP which is nearly a quarter of the world's total and about $4 Trillion in combined foreign-currency reserves. As this bloc moves to more comprehensive de-dollarization and conducts more transactions in its national currencies, the dollar's clout will only weaken further. Kicking countries out of SWIFT, the international electronic hub of worldwide financial transactions, was never really a solution; the USA did it to Iran, but Iran did not collapse, and European courts twice found the action illegal on behalf of separate Iranian banks. That notwithstanding, the west could not afford to kick such a large economic bloc out of SWIFT, or even only one member, because it would lose the capability to monitor those financial transactions. And the Sino-Russian international SWIFT alternative is firming up fast. America will learn, to its great sorrow, that the "petrodollar" without the "petro" is a paper tiger.

    Economic warfare is no longer a viable alternative. That leaves the USA's giant military machine.

    Elton John might not live long enough to sing "Candle in the Wind" for the United States as global whip-wielder, but you can nearly see that moment. Just keep in mind the part about blazing up to be the brightest explosion in the galaxy first.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Stockman Warns Trump Flynns Gone But They are Still Gunning For You, Donald by David Stockman

    Notable quotes:
    "... In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily. ..."
    "... But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen. ..."
    "... It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that: ..."
    "... 'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release. ..."
    "... And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians: ..."
    "... We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course. ..."
    "... As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy: ..."
    "... Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State. ..."
    "... Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries. ..."
    "... Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies. ..."
    "... Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed! ..."
    "... But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom. ..."
    "... That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive. ..."
    "... The Donald has been warned. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before getting felled by pneumonia.

    And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:

    Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.

    That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather wearing neither hat nor coat.

    That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.

    General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged by the CIA Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.

    Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a "traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.

    In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.

    But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily.

    But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen.

    It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:

    'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release.

    Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too. The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.

    And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed by somebody to do it?"

    We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course.

    This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.

    As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:

    Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.

    Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.

    Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:

    'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'

    Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.

    But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy and the liberties of the American people.

    As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:

    According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?

    Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'

    And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.

    According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:

    Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.

    So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

    Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.

    To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate, Dick Allen.

    As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:

    Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.

    The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).

    To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.

    So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.

    That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.

    Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.

    Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!

    But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.

    That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.

    The Donald has been warned.

    xythras , Feb 20, 2017 10:02 PM

    Assange is about to face censorship from one LENIN Moreno (next Ecuadorian president)

    Assange must Reduce "Meddling" in US Policies While in Ecuadorian Embassy

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-02-20/assange-must-reduce-meddling-i...

    How ironic

    Darktarra -> xythras , Feb 20, 2017 10:11 PM

    We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ... poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!

    Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt. Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!

    wanglee -> Darktarra , Feb 20, 2017 10:18 PM

    Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.

    Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's presidency.

    However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November. Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement" of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.

    To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary" county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.

    Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431 ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261... ) DEA Report Shows Infiltration of Mexican Drug Cartels in Sanctuary Cities ( http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/09/08/dea-report-shows-infiltration-... ) Welfare Discourages Work( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/the-science-is-settle... ) Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders's "Free College" Tuition Plan Is All a Lie ( http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clinton-says-sanders-free-tuition-wont-wo... UC Berkeley Chancellor: Hillary Clinton 'Free' College Tuition Plan Won't Happen ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/30/uc-berkeley-chancello... ) Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I'm 'Terrified' of Hillary because we know that there were "People" who "Disappeared" ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/exclusive-bil... ) Former FBI Asst. Director Accuses Clintons Of Being A "Crime Family" ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/former-fbi-asst-director-accuse... ) FBI boss Comey's 7 most damning lines on Clinton ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-da... ). Aides claiming she "could not use a computer," and didn't know her email password– New FBI docs ( https://www.rt.com/usa/360528-obama-implicated-clinton-email/ ). 23 Shocking Revelations From The FBI's Clinton Email Report ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/23-shocking-revelations-from-the-fbis-... ) DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up her email server ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-just... ) Former House Intelligence Chairman: I'm '100 Percent' Sure Hillary's Server Was Hacked ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/former-house-... ) Exclusive - Gen. Mike Flynn: Hillary Clinton's Email Setup Was 'Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior' ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/exclusive-gen... ) Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials ( http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-clas... ) Obama lied to the American people about his secret communications with Clinton( http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/president-barack-obama-hillary-email-... ) Former U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft: FBI didn't 'clear' Clinton ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFYQ3Cdp0zQ ) When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-cli... ) Wikileaks: Clinton Foundation Chatter with State Dept on Uranium Deal with Russia ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/08/wikileaks-putting-on-... ) Russian officials donated $$$ to Clinton Foundation for Russian military research ( http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/16/schweizer-insecure-left-wants-... ) Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-... ) HILLARY CAMPAIGN CHIEF LINKED TO MONEY-LAUNDERING IN RUSSIA ( HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2016/10/HILLARY-CAMPAIGN-CHIEF-LINKED-TO-MONEY-LAUNDE... ) The largest source of Trump campaign funds is small donors giving under $200 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-fund_us_57fd4556e4... ) How mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for Hillary Clinton ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mega-donors-helped-raise-1-b... ) Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2 ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-news... ) Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash ( https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hill... ) Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/judicial-watch-planni... )

    President Trump Vowed to Investigate Voter Fraud. Then Lawmakers Voted to "Eliminate" Election Commission Charged with Helping States Improve their Voting Systems ( http://time.com/4663250/house-committee-eliminates-election-commission-v... ) California's Recipe for Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale( http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/voter-fraud/ ) California Republican Party Official Alleges Voter Fraud In California, a "Sanctuary" state ( http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/28/trump-among-those-saying-vot... ) BREAKING: Massive Voter Fraud Discovered In Mailing Ballots In Pennsylvania! See Huge Twist In Results! ( http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/massive-voter-fraud-pennsylvania/ ) "Voting Fraud" revealed during "Recount": Scanners were used to count one vote many times to favor Clinton in Wayne County, a "Sanctuary" county including Detroit and surrounding areas.( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-06/michigan-republicans-file-emerg... ) Illegal Voters Tipping Election Scales ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/243947/illegal-voters-tipping-election-s... ) Voter Fraud: We've Got Proof It's Easy ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-... ) Voter Fraud Is Real. Here's The Proof ( http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/ ) Here's Why State Election Officials Think Voter Fraud Is a Serious Problem ( http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/17/heres-why-state-election-officials-thi... ) Documented Voter Fraud in US ( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ViewSubCategory.asp?id=2216 ) No, voter fraud isn't a myth: 10 cases where it's all too real ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth... ) Non-US citizen gets eight years for voter fraud in Texas after "Sucessfully Illegally Voted for at least Five Times" in Dallas county, a "Sanctuary" county( http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/09/non-us-citizen-gets-eight-years-... ) Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale ( http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/james-okeefe-rigging-elections-d... ) Texas Rigged? Reports Of Voting Machines Switching Votes To Hillary In Texas( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-reports-voti... ) Voting Machine "Irregularities" Reported in Utah, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, & North Carolina ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-08/voting-machine-irregularities-r... ) Video: Machine Refuses to Allow Vote For Trump in Pennsylvania ( http://www.infowars.com/video-machine-refuses-to-allow-vote-for-trump-in... ) Electoral fraud ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud ) Voter fraud ( https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_fraud ) Sanctuary Cities Continue to Obstruct Enforcement, Threaten Public Safety( http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map ) List of Sanctuary cities( http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html ) Map Shows Sanctuary City Islands of Blue In Sea of Red ( http://www.infowars.com/map-shows-sanctuary-city-islands-of-blue-in-sea-... )

    Chris Dakota -> wanglee , Feb 20, 2017 10:59 PM

    I hit some long click bait about famous people IQ

    Barack Obama 140

    Donald Trump 156

    Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy him."

    CheapBastard -> Darktarra , Feb 20, 2017 10:19 PM

    Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then, both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time he had to know if something was up.

    The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.

    I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden. If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will look even more stupid and Fake.

    Chupacabra-322 -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 10:54 PM

    The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents / Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.

    So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.

    Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.

    All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large, former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.

    It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.

    It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-18/jay-sekulow-obama-should-be-hel ...

    oncefired -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 11:07 PM

    http://www.thomaswictor.com/leakers-beware/

    Duc888 -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 11:11 PM

    Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list. That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Lawrence Wilkerson Travails of Empire - Oil, Debt, Gold and the Imperial Dollar

    Notable quotes:
    "... The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures to sustain it. ..."
    "... Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful commercial interests. ..."
    "... A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the office of the Presidency. ..."
    Aug 15, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
    "We are imperial, and we are in decline... People are losing confidence in the Empire."
    This is the key theme of Larry Wilkerson's presentation. He never really questions whether empire is good or bad, sustainable or not, and at what costs. At least he does not so in the same manner as that great analyst of empire Chalmers Johnson.

    It is important to understand what people who are in and near positions of power are thinking if you wish to understand what they are doing, and what they are likely to do. What ought to be done is another matter.

    Wilkerson is a Republican establishment insider who has served for many years in the military and the State Department. Here he is giving about a 40 minute presentation to the Centre For International Governance in Canada in 2014.

    I find his point of view of things interesting and revealing, even on those points where I may not agree with his perspective. There also seem to be some internal inconsistencies in this thinking.

    But what makes his perspective important is that it represents a mainstream view of many professional politicians and 'the Establishment' in America. Not the hard right of the Republican party, but much of what constitutes the recurring political establishment of the US.

    As I have discussed here before, I do not particularly care so much if a trading indicator has a fundamental basis in reality, as long as enough people believe in and act on it. Then it is worth watching as self-fulfilling prophecy. And the same can be said of political and economic memes.

    At minute 48:00 Wilkerson gives a response to a question about the growing US debt and of the role of the petrodollar in the Empire, and the efforts by others to 'undermine it' by replacing it. This is his 'greatest fear.'

    He speaks about 'a principal advisor to the CIA Futures project' and the National Intelligence Council (NIC), whose views and veracity of claims are being examined closely by sophisticated assets. He believes that both Beijing and Moscow are complicit in an attempt to weaken the dollar.

    This includes the observation that "gold is being moved in sort of unique ways, concentrated in secret in unique ways, and capitals are slowly but surely divesting themselves of US Treasuries. So what you are seeing right now in the supposed strengthening of the dollar is a false impression."

    The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures to sustain it.

    Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful commercial interests.

    Here is just that particular excerpt of the Q&A and the question of increasing US debt.

    I am not sure how much the policy makers and strategists agree with this theory about gold. But there is no doubt in my mind that they believe and are acting on the theory that oil, and the dollar control of oil, the so-called petrodollar, is the key to maintaining the empire.

    Wilkerson reminds me very much of a political theoretician who I knew at Georgetown University. He talks about strategic necessities, the many occasions in which the US has used its imperial power covertly to overthrow or attempt to overthrow governments in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and the Ukraine. He tends to ascribe all these actions to selflessness, and American service to the world in maintaining a balance of power where 'all we ask is a plot of ground to bury our dead.'

    A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the office of the Presidency.

    This is what is meant by realpolitik. It is all about organizing the world under a 'balance of power' that is favorable to the Empire and the corporations that have sprung up around it.

    As someone with a long background and interest in strategy I am not completely unsympathetic to these lines of thinking. But like most broadly developed human beings and students of history and philosophy one can see that the allure of such thinking, without recourse to questions of restraint and morality and the fig leaf of exceptionalist thinking, is a terrible trap, a Faustian bargain. It is the rationalization of every nascent tyranny. It is the precursor to the will to pure power for its own sake.

    The challenges of empire now according to Wilkerson are:

    1. Disequilibrium of wealth - 1/1000th of the US owns 50% of its total wealth. The current economic system implies long term stagnation (I would say stagflation. The situation in the US is 1929, and in France, 1789. All the gains are going to the top.
    2. BRIC nations are rising and the Empire is in decline, largely because of US strategic miscalculations. The US is therefore pressing harder towards war in its desperation and desire to maintain the status quo. And it is dragging a lot of good and honest people into it with our NATO allies who are dependent on the US for their defense.
    3. There is a strong push towards regional government in the US that may intensify as global warming and economic developments present new challenges to specific areas. For example, the water has left the Southwest, and it will not be coming back anytime soon.
    This presentation ends about minute 40, and then it is open to questions which is also very interesting.
    Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William Mary, and former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
    Related: Chalmers Johnson: Decline of Empire and the Signs of Decay

    [Feb 20, 2017] If Donald doesn't come down hard and soon, this shit will be out of control by mid May. Maidan will look like choir meet otherwise.

    Feb 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Winston Churchill -> knukles , Feb 19, 2017 1:29 PM

    If Donald doesn't come down hard and soon, this shit will be out of control by mid May. Maidan will look like choir meet otherwise.

    Ignatius -> Winston Churchill , Feb 19, 2017 1:46 PM

    I've been getting that same feeling of late: that events are near spinning out of control as the accusations and projections know no bounds. The more stupid the charge the more weight it carries.

    knukles -> Ignatius , Feb 19, 2017 1:52 PM

    Ditto. Strange undercurrent .... It's about a Propaganda machine losing it's narrative. It impacts everybody.

    Sorta like a John Wayne movie line come real: "The natives are supposed to be restless tonight and it's too damed quiet out there."

    sgt_doom -> knukles , Feb 19, 2017 4:22 PM

    Because neither of the financial hegemony's choices, Jeb Bush nor Hillary Clinton, were elected.

    Now, they are adlibbing and only the most stupid, most poorly informed, most rightwing types who believe themselves to be either "liberal" or "conservative" are believing Fake News.

    Giant Meteor -> Winston Churchill , Feb 19, 2017 1:54 PM

    Beware the Ides of March, Shit is getting out of hand.

    Soft palace coup sounds about right, and anyone think they have seen anything, has not seen anything..

    This country will implode ..

    Ignatius -> Giant Meteor , Feb 19, 2017 2:03 PM

    It happened to the Soviet Union -- suddenly, poof, gone -- and it feels the same.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Soft coup underway in United States. Obama should be held accountable - Jay Sekulow

    Notable quotes:
    "... "There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office. ..."
    "... Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important . They had 8 years, they didn't do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination. ..."
    "... Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government . You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump's position, so it just festers more leaks. ..."
    "... If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn't they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left." ..."
    "... "it makes it that much more difficult by spreading out the information among 16 other agencies, if they want to target or take away the privacy rights, and illegally tap the phones, in this case General Flynn, it's going to be much harder to find the perpetrator." ..."
    "... " President Obama, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch should be held accountable for this ." ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | theduran.com
    Obama is responsible for the soft coup that is now underway in the United States.

    American attorney and Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), Jay Sekulow explains why Barack Obama is the reason the "shadow government" is now openly trying to overthrow President Trump, and why leaks are now being disseminated.

    As you watch the video below and read the transcript, remember that it was these very 17 intelligence agencies that Obama empowered to misinform the public regarding "Russian election hacking".

    What is unfolding now, and being confirmed by Hannity and Sekulow, goes back to October 2016, and this post from The Duran's Alexander Mercouris entitled, " Hillary Clinton just planted a bomb under American Democracy" .

    KABOOM!

    watch-v=KLfUXH20Od8

    Zerohedge details why Obama and his administration should be "held accountable" for the "soft coup" now taking place

    According to civil right expert and prominent First Amendement Supreme Court lawyer, Jay Sekulow , what the agencies did by leaking the Trump Administration information was not only illegal but "almost becomes a soft coup", one which was spurred by the last minute rule-change by Obama, who intentionally made it far easier for leaks to propagate, and next to impossible to catch those responsible for the leaks.

    This is his explanation:

    "There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office.

    Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important . They had 8 years, they didn't do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

    Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government . You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump's position, so it just festers more leaks.

    If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn't they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left."

    One potential answer: they knew they had a "smoking gun", and were working to make it easier to enable the information to be "leaked" despite the clearly criminal consequences of such dissemination.

    As this point Hannity correctly points out, "it makes it that much more difficult by spreading out the information among 16 other agencies, if they want to target or take away the privacy rights, and illegally tap the phones, in this case General Flynn, it's going to be much harder to find the perpetrator."

    Sekulow confirms, noting that back when only the NSA had access to this kind of raw data, there would be a very small amount of people who have access to this kind of data. "But this change in the Obama Administration was so significant that they allowed dissemination to 16 other agencies, and we wonder why there's leaks."

    The lawyer's conclusion: " President Obama, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch should be held accountable for this ."

    [Feb 20, 2017] Most presidents have less power over the economy than one might assume from presidential campaigns and voter expectations.

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... Reply Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 09:02 PM , February 18, 2017 at 09:02 PM
    Beltway Panic, Wall Street Zen
    https://nyti.ms/2m9uO0z
    NYT - Ross Douthat - Feb 18

    The most grounded fears about a Donald Trump presidency have always involved incompetence rather than malevolence, the perils of a catastrophically weak presidency rather than the prospect of a near-dictatorship.

    So far many of these fears are being vindicated. Trump's policy rollouts have been botched, his appointments mismanaged, his White House is a feuding mess, his legislative agenda is lost in the fog. He's in wars with the press, the intelligence community, the bureaucracy and the courts, and he isn't obviously winning any of them.

    But those of us who feared a flailing Trump administration didn't fear it for its own sake. We feared the second-order consequences - global instability, domestic unrest, constant economic jitters.

    There are hints of the first in North Korea's missile test and various Russian maneuvers, signs of the second in the spasms of anti-Trump protest since Election Day.

    But the third is nowhere to be seen. While political journalists and Washington hands freak out daily over the Trump presidency, the stock market keeps acting like everything is fine, or better than fine, or even (if you will) just great again.

    A growing economy is compatible with creeping authoritarianism, of course, as Trump's most alarmist critics are fond of pointing out. But is it compatible with outrageous presidential incompetence, with a White House that can't hit a target with a Super Soaker from six inches away?

    That's what we'll find out. In effect, the Trump era is pitting the wisdom of one elite crowd against the wisdom of another - the crowd of D.C. politicos against the herd of brokers and analysts and financiers just an Acela ride away. It's the crowd of experts that totally failed to predict the rise of Trump against the crowd of experts that managed to miss the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

    The best case for the Wall Street perspective runs as follows: Most presidents have less power over the economy than one might assume from presidential campaigns and voter expectations. If this is true of administrations whose carefully calibrated economic programs have all the weight of wonkery behind them, why shouldn't it be true of administrations that find themselves unable to accomplish much of anything? If what matters is the fundamentals, and his White House is more likely to be balked and baffled than frenetically transformative, why not just bet those fundamentals and assume you'll win?

    There is historical evidence for this proposition, in the sense that the link between political and economic crises is more uncertain than direct. The financial crisis struck at a low ebb in George W. Bush's effectiveness, but the Great Depression hit with a popular and (at that point) famously competent Herbert Hoover at the helm. The political turmoil of the late 1960s coincided with low unemployment rates and strong G.D.P. growth. Watergate was rough on the stock market, but the Clinton impeachment, not so much, and markets mostly weathered the gridlock and debt-ceiling brinksmanship of the Obama years. If Trump is impotent or if he's impeached, there is precedent for the markets simply shrugging, for the economy to keep chugging right along.

    However: This argument assumes that Trump's level of incompetence stays within at least hailing distance of normal bounds, and/or that no crisis comes unlooked-for that the Trump White House fumbles into something much, much worse. Gridlock in Washington need not damage the economy, but a botched response to terrorism, a mismanagement of the next Ebola, or a buffoonish response to financial hiccups could be a different matter. So, too, with a Watergate-level constitutional crisis, a civilian-military conflict, and so on down a list of all-too-plausible Trump-era tests.

    It is possible we will pass four years without such a test. (Eight is tougher, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.) And the investor class's bet, right now, is that if you combine the chances of avoiding a major test entirely, the chances of the Trump White House somehow finding its footing, and the chances that Trump semi-accidentally handles his biggest test O.K., you get a probability high enough to justify betting on continued prosperity and growth instead of freaking out about the daily White House meltdowns.

    Except probably it's not really that rational and calculated; it's animal spirits and all that. But then again, irrationality cuts both ways: As the economist and columnist Tyler Cowen likes to point out, if political observers were really so confident in our alarm, we would all be dumping our portfolios (or at least buying put options, or trying to set up a big Trump short). ...

    Trump doomsayers miss a money-making opportunity
    http://bv.ms/2jihOW5 via @Bloomberg - Jan 11

    l

    [Feb 20, 2017] Russia contacts insinuations by neocons as a ruse

    It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
    Feb 17, 2017 | www.merriam-webster.com
    Lookups for ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

    "Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone call to Russia in years."
    - cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017

    Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.

    The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance of subterfuge .

    [Feb 20, 2017] Economist's View Links for 02-18-17

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : , February 19, 2017 at 08:32 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/ecuador-s-decade-of-reform

    February 14, 2017

    Ecuador's Decade of Reform
    By Mark Weisbrot

    In a shift supported and welcomed in Washington, Latin America has been moving to the right in the last year or so. Three of South America's largest economies - Brazil, Argentina, and Peru - now have right-wing presidents with close ties to Washington and its foreign policy. The standard "Washington Consensus" narrative, while ignoring any US role in the region, sees the left governments that were elected in South America over the past couple decades as having ridden a commodities boom to populist victories, with handouts to the poor and unsustainable spending. When that boom collapsed, the story goes, so did the finances of left governments and therefore their political fortunes.

    But this is a highly exaggerated and self-serving narrative. Ecuador is a good example of how a left government achieved success over the past decade through positive and creative changes in economic policy, as well as financial, institutional, and regulatory reform.

    The details are also worth looking at because Ecuador's experience shows that much of the rhetoric about how "globalization" restricts the choices of governments to those that please international investors is also exaggerated. It turns out that even a relatively small, middle-income developing country can adopt workable alternative policy options - if people can elect a government that is independent and responsible enough to use them.

    The results for the decade-plus of left government in Ecuador (2007–16) include a 38 percent reduction in poverty and a 47 percent reduction in extreme poverty. Social spending as a percentage of GDP doubled, including large increases in spending on education and healthcare. Educational enrollment increased sharply for ages 17 and under, and spending on higher education as a percent of GDP became the highest in Latin America. Average annual growth of income per capita was much higher than in the prior 26 years (1.5 versus 0.6 percent), and inequality was considerably reduced.

    Public investment as a percent of GDP more than doubled, and the results were widely appreciated in new roads, hospitals, schools, and access to electricity.

    Rafael Correa was elected president of Ecuador in 2006 and took office in January of 2007. A former economy minister who was trained in the United States, he set out to fix some of the structural and institutional problems that had kept Ecuador from advancing. Policy was handicapped by the fact that Ecuador had adopted the US dollar as its currency in 2000. This meant that the government couldn't influence its exchange rate and was limited in how much it could use monetary policy. And it reduced the Central Bank's ability to act as a lender of last resort to the banking system.

    This meant that the government had to be more efficient and creative, and exert more control over the financial system. In 2008, a new constitution was approved in a referendum, and the central bank - which was previously "independent" and mandated to focus on low inflation - was now made part of the government's economic team. This was very important in coordinating economic policy. The conventional wisdom among most economists-and a pillar of neoliberalism - is that central banks should be independent of elected officials. In practice, this usually means that they are unaccountable to the public, but not so independent of powerful financial interests.

    A new law in 2009 required that banks in Ecuador bring 45 percent of their liquid assets back into the country; this requirement increased to 60 percent in 2012, and the actual level was more than 80 percent by 2015. These and other reforms that kept dollars in the country were essential to overcoming the new government's first serious challenge: the world financial crisis of 2008 and world recession of 2009. Ecuador was one of the hardest-hit countries in the hemisphere, since oil prices collapsed and the government depended on oil for the majority of its revenue. Another major source of dollars, remittances - mostly money sent home by Ecuadorians working abroad - also collapsed during the recession. This double shock could have caused a prolonged recession or depression, but it didn't, thanks to large increases in government spending and a large stimulus in 2009. The recession lasted just three quarters, costing about 1.3 percent of GDP.

    The next big economic shock was the much more prolonged collapse in oil prices that began in the third quarter of 2014. This time, the government was even more creative: In addition to some expansionary fiscal policy (i.e., running bigger budget deficits), the central bank actually engaged in quantitative easing, much as the US Federal Reserve did in response to the recession. Ecuador's central bank created billions of dollars that it lent to the government for spending (and also to state-owned banks). This was unexpected for a government that did not even have its own currency, but it proved to be very helpful in the recovery.

    The most important decision in bringing about Ecuador's current economic recovery was also perhaps the most unorthodox: The government imposed a variety of tariffs on imports under the World Trade Organization's provision for emergency balance-of-payments safeguards. This reduction of imports in 2015–16 added about 7.6 percentage points to GDP during those years. This counteracted spending cuts that the government had to make as revenues crashed.

    The government of Correa and his party (Alianza PAIS) was thus able to achieve considerable economic and social progress, despite two recessions caused by serious external shocks. Contrary to the Washington narrative, this depended on major institutional reforms, financial regulation, and smart policy choices, many of which went against the conventional neoliberal wisdom.

    Of course it helped that the president himself has a PhD in economics and knew what he was doing, and that he had a serious commitment to progressive governance from the beginning. Still, Correa's government had to fight powerful entrenched interests, including the bankers who owned most of the television media when he took office. A referendum in 2011 prohibited banks from owning media (and vice versa), and that helped to reduce their stranglehold on public debate. But the media have remained a powerful and politicized right-wing force, as in other countries with left governments - e.g. Brazil, where the major media led a successful effort last year to remove Workers' Party President Dilma Rousseff from office - despite the lack of any impeachable offense.

    The government's legacy will be tested in an election this Sunday for president and national assembly....

    anne -> anne... , February 19, 2017 at 08:35 AM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cKAw

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States, Ecuador and Bolivia, 2000-2014

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cKAx

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States, Ecuador and Bolivia, 2000-2014

    (Indexed to 2000)

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
    "... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
    "... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for yourself

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/18/im-democrat-and-ex-cia-but-spies-plotting-against-trump-are-out-control.html

    "I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"

    By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com

    ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...

    Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM
    The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!

    Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!

    +40 years around the puzzlers.

    [Feb 19, 2017] A re we close to the stage when a false flag operation against Trump (like shooting of protesters) will be deployed, or not yet ?

    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova : February 19, 2017 at 08:17 AM , 2017 at 08:17 AM
    Fred,

    As you are the most active promoter of color revolution against Trump in this blog, and definitely read a lot about his issue, I would like to ask you: are we close to the stage when a false flag operation against Trump (like shooting of protesters) will be deployed, or not yet ?

    For the list of a typical signs of color revolution see, for example,

    https://www.sott.net/article/334026-SOTT-Exclusive-A-Purple-Color-revolution-in-the-US-Learn-the-signs-of-color-revolutions

    == quote ==

    "Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to have the knowledge to avoid being drawn into supporting such a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is about democracy and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.

    The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in America itself to serve the powers that be.

    The 12 steps are:

    1. Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country

    2. Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals

    3. Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life

    4. If the target country has unions, bribe them

    5. Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution

    6. Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do.

    7. Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians and civilians involved.

    8. Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call upon all people with grievances to join

    9. The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority

    10. When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people

    11. Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international community

    12. Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising

    [Feb 19, 2017] How close the deep state is to shooting protesters from rooftops and blaming this on Trump: 12 signs of the color revolution and Trump Derangement Syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country ..."
    "... Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals ..."
    "... Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do ..."
    "... The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority ..."
    "... When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people ..."
    "... Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising ..."
    "... What the FBI/deep state did to Flynn and 3 other private US citizens was unthinkable before Obama and his DNC! ..."
    "... My team USA is not run by neoliberal neocons running an illicit deep state. ..."
    "... Newspapers hires only hacks who must display Trump Derangement Syndrome like poor pk to be printed and paid. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova : February 19, 2017 at 08:17 AM
    Fred,

    As you are the most active promoter of color revolution against Trump in this blog, and definitely read a lot about his issue, I would like to ask you: are we close to the stage when a false flag operation against Trump (like shooting of protesters) will be deployed, or not yet ?

    For the list of a typical signs of color revolution see, for example,

    https://www.sott.net/article/334026-SOTT-Exclusive-A-Purple-Color-revolution-in-the-US-Learn-the-signs-of-color-revolutions

    == quote ==

    "Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to have the knowledge to avoid being drawn into supporting such a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is about democracy and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.

    The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in America itself to serve the powers that be.

    The 12 steps are:

    1. Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country

    2. Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals

    3. Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life

    4. If the target country has unions, bribe them

    5. Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution

    6. Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do.

    7. Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians and civilians involved.

    8. Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call upon all people with grievances to join

    9. The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority

    10. When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people

    11. Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international community

    12. Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising

    Fred C. Dobbs -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 08:46 AM

    The Kremlin is starting to worry about Donald Trump http://read.bi/2l25rQD via @Business Insider - Feb 17

    ... Russian policymakers, obsessed as they are with the fear of "color revolutions," may understand better than Americans and Europeans the radical nature of the political change that has descended on Washington. ...

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 09:55 AM
    Still, can you please try to answer the question posted: How close are we to the standard for color revolutions false flag operation in which "unidentified gunmen" shoot unarmed protesters from rooftops and the incident is blamed on Trump supporters.

    Or something similar.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 11:54 AM
    It's unthinkable, actually.
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 04:48 PM
    What the FBI/deep state did to Flynn and 3 other private US citizens was unthinkable before Obama and his DNC!

    My calendar for Jan 18 is tweeked! I will not let this go!

    im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM
    Fred do not get caught up in libezkova's or ilsm's worldview, they do not play with our team USA.
    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 19, 2017 at 02:58 PM
    I can only guess who are the members of your "team USA". With your jingoism and anti-Russian stance, I assume that they include such people:

    Charles Krauthammer
    David Frum
    Douglas Feith
    John McCain
    Lindsey Graham
    Michael Ledeen
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Richard Perle
    Robert Kagan
    Samantha Power
    Scooter Libby
    Susan Rice
    Victoria Nuland
    ... ... ...

    If so, you are in good company... Don't forget to buy M16, ammunition and tickets to Syria. We probably will be able to survive without your posts for some time.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 19, 2017 at 04:50 PM
    im1dc, read your 4th amendment, and say wht the FBI etc did to republicans is okay!

    My team USA is not run by neoliberal neocons running an illicit deep state.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 08:49 AM
    I am in no way such a 'promoter'.

    Rather, I am only concerned about the unusual state of US politics currently.

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 09:00 AM
    Please don't be too shy about your achievements...
    Fred C. Dobbs -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 09:02 AM
    It's worth noting that Mr Trump's major hometown newspaper, and the major papers in Boston, Washington, LA & elsewhere are Seriously Concerned about his presidency.

    That in itself is unsettling, and that is perhaps all there is to it. TV news outlets, except for Fox & MSNBC, make some effort at neutrality, it seems.

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 09:59 AM
    > "It's worth noting that Mr Trump's major hometown newspaper, and the major papers in Boston, Washington, LA & elsewhere are Seriously Concerned
    about his presidency."

    Yes, I agree that it is worth noting. See p.3 and 9 in the 12 points list above.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 03:21 PM
    Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/02/19/fox-news-anchor-chris-wallace-warns-viewers-trump-crossed-line-latest-attack-media/ljw1yv1JnSftbjLJU0eNGI/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

    Amy B. Wang - Washington Post - February 19, 2017

    Fox News anchor Chris Wallace cautioned his colleagues and the network's viewers Sunday that President Donald Trump's latest attack on the media had gone too far.

    ''Look, we're big boys. We criticize presidents. They want to criticize us back, that's fine,'' Wallace said Sunday morning on ''Fox & Friends.'' ''But when he said that the fake news media is not my enemy, it's the enemy of the American people, I believe that crosses an important line.''

    The ''Fox & Friends'' anchors had shown a clip of Trump recounting that past presidents, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, had fought with the press. They then asked Wallace whether Trump's fraught relationship with the media was a big deal.

    In response, Wallace told his colleagues that Jefferson had also once written the following: ''And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''

    Context was important, Wallace said. All presidents fight with the media, but Trump had taken it a step further in making them out to be ''the enemy,'' he added. ...

    (Trump is very pugnacious, clearly, and will
    not allow the media to have the last word, ever.)

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 04:52 PM
    Newspapers hires only hacks who must display Trump Derangement Syndrome like poor pk to be printed and paid.

    Appeal to propagandists playing as the 'free press' is not logical nor based on any relevance.

    [Feb 19, 2017] Democrats Suggest Invoking The 25th Amendment Unless Trump Gets A Grip

    Notable quotes:
    "... In other words, for the first time, the concept of a " soft palace coup" has been officially brought up on public media; we expect such speculation will only get louder. ..."
    "... The ball is now in Trump's court. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    In fact, The Atlantic's David Frum joked after the election, "Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4. We're all going to be talking a lot more about it in the months ahead."

    So, what's Article 4 to the 25th Amendment? In the abstract, the amendment itself is about presidential succession, and includes language about the power of the office when a president is incapacitated. But Digby recently highlighted the specific text of growing relevance:

    "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

    What does that mean exactly?

    Well, it means Congress isn't the only institution that can remove a president from office between elections . Under the 25th Amendment, a sitting vice president and a majority of the executive branch's cabinet could, on their own, agree to transfer power out of the hands of a sitting president. At that point, those officials would notify Congress, and the vice president would assume the office as the acting president.

    And what if the challenged president wasn't on board with the plan to remove him/her from the office? According to a recent explainer , "If the president wants to dispute this move, he can, but then it would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote . A two-thirds majority in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that threshold isn't reached, the president would regain his powers." All of this comes up in fiction from time to time, and in all likelihood, Americans will probably never see this political crisis play out in real life. And that's probably a good thing: by all appearances, the intended purpose of the constitutional provision was to address a president with a serious ailment – say, a stroke, for example – in which he or she is alive, but unable to fulfill the duties of the office.

    In other words, for the first time, the concept of a " soft palace coup" has been officially brought up on public media; we expect such speculation will only get louder.

    The ball is now in Trump's court.

    [Feb 19, 2017] Learn the signs of color revolutions

    Notable quotes:
    "... A number of the steps could be skipped, because the infrastructure is already in place due to home-ground advantage. Unlike in Russia, where a number of NGOs have been banned precisely to avoid color revolutions, NGOs are everywhere in the U.S. and not least those sponsored by George Soros. Move.org is one such and as Harrison Koehli noted in his article ..."
    "... George Soros, who invested heavily in Hillary winning the presidency, has already done some experimenting on color revolutions in America, such as in Baltimore and in Ferguson. An article from last year by Brandon Turbeville explains it: ..."
    "... Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago ; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation - all funded in part by Mr. Soros - descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month. ..."
    "... Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night" . On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.sott.net
    "Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to have the knowledge to avoid being drawn into supporting such a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is about democracy and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change .

    The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in America itself to serve the powers that be.The 12 steps are:

    1. Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country
    2. Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals
    3. Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
    4. If the target country has unions, bribe them
    5. Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
    6. Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do .
    7. Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians and civilians involved
    8. Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call upon all people with grievances to join
    9. The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
    10. When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people
    11. Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force . This will cause the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international community
    12. Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising
    A number of the steps could be skipped, because the infrastructure is already in place due to home-ground advantage. Unlike in Russia, where a number of NGOs have been banned precisely to avoid color revolutions, NGOs are everywhere in the U.S. and not least those sponsored by George Soros. Move.org is one such and as Harrison Koehli noted in his article
    The fact is, most of these protests have been peaceful, or at least they started out as such, like the one in Portland. And every movement or ideology has its crazies, extremists, and those who resort to violence. But there's this to consider: MoveOn "activists" march against Trump: George Soros begins his color revolution in America . And this :
    With tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to protest Donald Trump's presidential election victory, questions are swirling about whether the anger is as organic as advertised. ... observers online are claiming that, in some cases, protesters were bussed to the scenes - a telltale sign of coordination . "Anti-Trump protesters in Austin today are not as organic as they seem," one local in the Texas capitol tweeted Wednesday, along with photos offered as evidence.
    George Soros, who invested heavily in Hillary winning the presidency, has already done some experimenting on color revolutions in America, such as in Baltimore and in Ferguson. An article from last year by Brandon Turbeville explains it:
    It should also be noted that the Open Society Institute, one of Soros' main NGOs, has worked closely with Mayor Rawlings-Blake and Google in making Baltimore one of their "test cities" for smart technology and new fiber cables. Rawlings-Blake has had pleasant things to say about Soros in the past.

    While the above information addresses the involvement of #blacklivesmatter groups and similar organizations active on the ground inside Ferguson as a matter of historical precedent, these organizations and similar operations such as the Black Youth Project ( funded by Soros ) and the Open Society Institute and its subsidiaries have had a sizeable presence inside Baltimore in the time leading up to the Freddie Gray protests and continue to do so as we speak.

    The article mentions that in Ferguson buses were also used to bring protesters in from outside:
    Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago ; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation - all funded in part by Mr. Soros - descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month.
    All were aimed at keeping the media's attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes - not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August.
    So when Hillary, with her serial rapist husband at her side, came to give her speech the day after her defeat, she may just have given the signal to begin a "purple revolution":
    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night" . On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    One could speculate that the rage Hillary Clinton displayed over having lost is what is being expressed through her supporters in the form of a massive tantrum. Even if that is so, at a different level forces are at work to steer the ship back under the control of the establishment and the ruling elite.

    The whole narrative of U.S. color revolutions, astutely pinned down and shown on Chinese television, can be seen below:

    [Feb 19, 2017] President Donald Trump Press Conference Transcript

    See also Whitehouse The level of grilling was unprecedented. Compare with Obama press conferences, which were as if taken from the USSR with presidents answers the question that he himself wrote.
    You can be amazing at the art of making an elephant out of a fly that those presscorp honchos demonstrate. Such a talented presstitutes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons. Then coming to Washington and pursuing -- and then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is important to many politicians. I am here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing. ..."
    "... We've directed eliminations of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited approval for the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get approved for a factory. They go in for a permit. It's many, many years. Then at the end of the process they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense and, at the end of the process they get rejected. ..."
    "... They may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection. It's not going to take years. But mostly it's going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and factories built and we want the jobs. We don't want the jobs going to other countries. ..."
    "... And I'll tell you something, I'll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth and I guess I have all my life, but I've never seen more dishonest media than frankly the political media. ..."
    "... Aggressively pursue the sources who leaked. ..."
    "... Trump: We are. ..."
    "... Trump: We're looking at them very, very seriously. I've gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies, and where I've actually called the justice department to look into the leaks, those are criminal leaks. ..."
    "... But it wasn't that important a call, it was fine, I could show it to the world, he could show it to the world the president who is a very fine man, by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said, that was terrible it was leaked. But what happens when I'm dealing with the problems in North Korea and the Middle East? ..."
    "... Well, the leaks are real. You're the one who wrote about them and reported them. The leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it. The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. ..."
    "... But I think it should be straight. I think it would be, frankly, more interesting. I know how good everybody's ratings are right now, but I think they would actually be better. People -- I mean, you have a lower approval rate than congress. ..."
    "... Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10:00 in the evening. You just take a look at that show, that is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn't have good ratings, but the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump, and the hatred and venom coming from his mouth. The hatred coming from other people on your network. ..."
    "... If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it's brutal. Now, they'll take this news conference -- I'm actually having a very good time, OK -- but they'll take this news conference -- don't forget, that's the way I won't remember, I gave you a news conference every time I made a speech which was every day. ..."
    "... I think Putin probably assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to be making a deal. ..."
    "... Because it would be easier to be tough on Russian than make a deal. ..."
    "... If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. ..."
    "... But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away, she did other things away. They say I'm close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium. She's close to Russia. You know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave? ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.esquire.com

    ...We have to talk about it to find out what's going ... because the press, honestly, is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control. I ran for president to represent the citizens of our country. I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities well. I am talking and really talking on this very entrenched power structure, and what we're doing is we're talking about the power structure, we're talking about its entrenchment. As a result, the media is going through what they have to go through to, oftentimes, distort -- not all the time, and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say, they're honest and fantastic, but much of it is not. The distortion -- and we'll talk about it, you will be able to ask me questions about it -- but we're not going to let it happen because I'm here to take our message straight to the people.

    ... ... ...

    On foreign affairs, we've already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders, much of it you've covered, to move forward toward stability, security and peace in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many. We've had great conversations with the United Kingdom and meetings, Israel, Mexico, Japan, China and Canada, really, really productive conversations. I would say far more productive than you would understand. We've even developed a new council with Canada to promote women's business leaders and entrepreneurs. Very important to me. Very important to my daughter Ivanka.

    I've directed our defense community headed by our great general now Secretary Mattis, he's over there now working very hard to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world, used to be a small group, now it's in large sections of the world. They've spread like cancer. ISIS has spread like cancer. Another mess I inherited, and we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran who has totally taken advantage of our previous administration, and they're the world's top sponsor of terrorism, and we're not going to stop until that problem is properly solved, and it's not properly solved now. It's one of the worst agreements I've ever seen drawn by anybody. I've ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding of the United States military.

    Had great support from the Senate. I've had great support from congress, generally. We've pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military, and I will tell you, that is my -- I would be so happy if we never had to use it, but our country will never have had a military like this military we're about to build and rebuild. We have the greatest people on Earth in our military, but they don't have the right equipment, and their equipment is old. I used it, I talked about it at every step. Depleted. It's depleted. It won't be depleted for long. I think one of the reasons I'm standing here instead of other people is that, frankly, I talked about it, we have to have a strong military. We have to have strong law enforcement, also. So we do not go abroad in the search of war. We really are searching for peace, but it's peace through strength.

    At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a scale not seen in many, many years. In each of these actions, I'm keeping my promises to the American people. These are campaign promises. Some people are so surprised that we're having strong borders. Well, that's what I have been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They're so surprised. Oh, having strong borders. Well, that's what I have been talking about to the press and to everybody else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons. Then coming to Washington and pursuing -- and then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is important to many politicians. I am here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing.

    ... ... ...

    We've directed eliminations of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited approval for the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get approved for a factory. They go in for a permit. It's many, many years. Then at the end of the process they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense and, at the end of the process they get rejected.

    They may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection. It's not going to take years. But mostly it's going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and factories built and we want the jobs. We don't want the jobs going to other countries.

    ... ... ...

    We've imposed a hiring freeze on non-essential federal workers. We've imposed a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations.

    We've issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. Makes sense. Nobody's ever seen regulations like we have. You go to other countries and you look at industries they have, and you say, let me see your regulations, and they're a fraction, just a tiny fraction of what we have. And I want regulations because I want safety, I want environmental -- all environmental situations to be taken properly care of, it's very important to me, but you don't need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing.

    We've stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence. We've directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation -- take a look at Chicago and others -- taking place right now in our inner cities. Horrible. We've ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice to coordinate a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States with drugs. We're becoming a drug-infested nation. Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars, and we're not going to let it happen any longer.

    We've undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border. Met with general now Secretary Kelly yesterday, and we're starting that process, and the wall is going to be a great wall, and it's going to be a wall negotiated by me. The price is going to come down just like it has on everything else I've negotiated for the government, and we're going to have a wall that works. We're not going to have a wall like now which is either non-existent or a joke.

    We've ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that harbor criminal aliens and we've ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border, no more release. No matter who you are, release. We've begin a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers and others who pose a threat to public safety. We are saving American lives every single day. The court system has not made it easy for us. We've even created a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, of which there are many.

    ... ... ...

    They were with me a week ago. You were here. General Motors committed likewise to invest billions of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave. And if I didn't get elected, believe me, they would have left, and these jobs and these things that I am announcing would never have come here. Intel just announced it will move ahead with a new plant in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with, and that will result in at least so -- in at least 10,000 American jobs. Wal-Mart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives. There will be many, many more. Many more. These are a few that we're naming. Other countries have been taking advantage of us for decades -- decades and decades and decades, folks -- and we're not going to let that happen anymore, not going to let it happen.

    ... ... ...

    Trump: Mike Flynn is a fine person. I asked for his resignation. He respectfully gave it. He is a man who, there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence who is with us today, and I was not happy with the way that information was given. He didn't have to do that because what he did wasn't wrong. What he did in terms of the information he saw, what was wrong was the way other people including yourselves in this room were given that information, because that was classified information that was given illegally. That's the real problem. And you can talk all you want about Russia, which is all a, you know, fake news fabricated deal to try to make up for the loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with this but they know nothing about it. They never made a phone call to Russia, they never received a phone call, it's all fake news. It's all fake news. The nice thing is I see it starting to turn where people are now looking at the illegal -- I think it's very important -- the illegal giving out classified information. And let me just tell you, it was given out, like, so much. I'll give you an example. I called, as you know, Mexico. It was a very confidential, classified call, but I called Mexico, and, in calling Mexico, I figured, well -- I spoke to the president of Mexico, had a good call, and all of a sudden it's out for the world to see. It's supposed to be secret. It's supposed to be either confidential or classified in that case. Same thing with Australia. All of a sudden, people are finding out exactly what took place. The same thing happened with respect to general Flynn. Everybody saw this. And I'm saying -- the first thing I thought of when I heard about this is how does the press get this information that's classified? How do they do it? You know why? Because it's an [inaudible] process and the press should be ashamed of themselves, but more importantly the people who gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. Really ashamed.

    ... ... ...

    The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they're there, because we have our new people going in place right now, as you know -- Mike Pompeo has now taken control of the CIA, James Comey at F.B.I. Dan Coates is waiting to be approved, I mean, he is a senator and a highly with respected one and waiting the to be approved, and our new people are going in. And just while you're at it, The Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Times story yesterday, and it talked about -- this is front page. So Director of National Intelligence just put out a statement, any suggestion that the United States intelligence community -- this was just given to us -- is withholding information and not providing the the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not true. So they took this front-page story out of The Wall Street Journal, top, and they just wrote the story that it's not true.

    And I'll tell you something, I'll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth and I guess I have all my life, but I've never seen more dishonest media than frankly the political media. I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest. But I will say that I never get phone calls from the media. How do they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal like that without asking me? Or how do they write a story in The New York Times put it on the front page. Like the story they wrote about the women and me, front page, big story, and it was nasty. Then they called and said, we never said that, we like Mr. President Trump. They called my office, we like Mr. Trump, we never said that. And they totally disrespected those very wonderful women, I have to tell you, totally disrespected. I said give us a retraction. They never gave us a retraction and I, frankly, went on to other things. Go ahead.

    ... ... ...

    Reporter: Can you tell us in determining Michael Flynn did no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence was weighed? Did you ask for transcripts of the telephone intercepts -- (inaudible) -- Aggressively pursue the sources who leaked.

    Trump: We are.

    ... ... ...

    Trump: We're looking at them very, very seriously. I've gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies, and where I've actually called the justice department to look into the leaks, those are criminal leaks. They're put out by people either in agencies -- I think you will see it stopping because now we have our people and, you know, again, we don't have our people in because we can't get them approved by the Senate. We just had Jeff Sessions approved, just as an example. So we are looking into that very seriously. It's a criminal act. You know what I say, when I was called out on Mexico, I was shocked, because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment. When I was called out on Mexico, I was -- honestly, I was really, really surprised. But I said, you know it doesn't make sense, that won't happen. But it wasn't that important a call, it was fine, I could show it to the world, he could show it to the world the president who is a very fine man, by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said, that was terrible it was leaked. But what happens when I'm dealing with the problems in North Korea and the Middle East?

    Are you folks going to be reporting all that very, very confidential information, very important, very -- you know, at the highest level? Are you going to be reporting about that, too? So I don't want classified information getting out into the public in a way that was almost a test. So I'm dealing with Mexico, I'm dealing with Argentina. We were dealing in this case with Mike Flynn. All this information gets put into The Washington Post and The New York Times, and I'm saying, what's going to happen when I'm dealing on the Middle East? What's going to happen when I'm dealing with really, really important subjects like North Korea? We've got to stop it. That's why it's a criminal penalty. Yes, John?

    Trump: Well, the leaks are real. You're the one who wrote about them and reported them. The leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it. The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do, and I hope we can correct it, because there is nobody I have respect for -- well, maybe a little bit -- but than good reporters. It's very important to me and especially in this position. Very important. I don't mind a bad story.

    I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it's true. You know, over the course of time, I'll make mistakes and, you'll write, badly, and I'm OK with that, but I'm not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN. It's so much anger and hatred and just the hatred -- I don't watch it anymore because it's very good -- he's saying no. It's OK Jim, you will have your chance. But I watch others, too. You're not the only one, so don't feel badly.

    But I think it should be straight. I think it would be, frankly, more interesting. I know how good everybody's ratings are right now, but I think they would actually be better. People -- I mean, you have a lower approval rate than congress. I think that's right. I don't know, Peter, is that one right? Because, you know, I think they have lower -- I heard lower than congress.

    But, honestly, the public would appreciate it I would appreciate it -- again, I don't mind bad stories when it's true, but we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult. I think we're setting a record or close to a record in the time of approval of a cabinet. The numbers are crazy when I'm looking. Some of them were approved immediately, but we still have a lot of people we're waiting for. That's all they're doing is delaying.

    You look at Schumer and the mess he's got over there and they have nothing going. The only thing they can do is delay. I think they would be better served by approving and making sure they're happy and everybody is good. Sometimes, I know President Obama lost three or four and you lose them on the way and that's OK, that's fine, but I think they would be much better served, John, if they just went through the process quickly.

    This is pure delay tactics, and they say it and everybody understands it. Go ahead.

    ... ... ...

    Jim Acosta: They don't hate you, sir.

    Trump: Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10:00 in the evening. You just take a look at that show, that is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn't have good ratings, but the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump, and the hatred and venom coming from his mouth. The hatred coming from other people on your network.

    Now, I will say this -- I watch it, I see it, I'm amazed by it, and I just think you would be a lot better off, I honestly do -- the public gets it. When I go to rallies, they turn around and start screaming at CNN, they want to show their placards at CNN. I think you would do much better by being different.

    But just take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening. If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it's brutal. Now, they'll take this news conference -- I'm actually having a very good time, OK -- but they'll take this news conference -- don't forget, that's the way I won't remember, I gave you a news conference every time I made a speech which was every day.

    ... ... ...

    Reporter: Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir?

    Trump: No, I don't think so. I think Putin probably assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to be making a deal.

    I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician but I guess that's what I am now. Because it would be easier to be tough on Russian than make a deal.

    I don't know if we'll make a deal. We might, might not. But it would be easier for me -- the tougher I am on Russia, the better. I want to do the right thing for the American people. I want to do the right thing for the world.

    If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along, don't forget, we're very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There's no upside. We're very powerful nuclear country. I've been briefed, I can tell you one thing about briefing that we're allowed to say, anybody that read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They are very powerful nuclear country, so are we.

    If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

    ... ... ...

    Trump: They all happened recently. I understand what they're doing. Because they're doing the same thing. Now, again, maybe I'm not going to be able to do a deal but at least I will have tried. I don't, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump? Does anybody in this room really believe that? OK.

    But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away, she did other things away. They say I'm close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium. She's close to Russia. You know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave?

    Reporter: I just hoping we could get yes or no answer involving Russia. Can you say whether you are aware whether anyone who advised your campaign had contact with Russia during the course of the election?

    Trump: I told you general Flynn obviously was dealing so that's one person. As he should have been.

    Reporter: During the election?

    Trump: Nobody that I know of.

    Reporter: Not aware of any contact during the course of the election.

    Trump: How many times do I have to answer this question But Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't, I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice, he called me on the election, I told you this. He called me on the inauguration, a few days ago. We had a very good talk. Especially the second one, lasted for pretty long period of time. I'm sure you probably get it because it was classified so I'm sure everybody in this room perhaps has it? We have very, very good talk. I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. Now people knew he was a consultant over in that part of the world for awhile, but not for Russia. I think he repped Ukraine or people that -- whoever. But people knew that. Everybody knew that.

    Reporter: In the capacity as your campaign manager was he in touch with Russian officials?

    Trump: You know what, he said, no. I can only tell you -- now, he was replaced long before the election, you know that, right? He was replaced long before the election. When all of this stuff started coming out it came out during the election, Paul Manafort who is a good man, also, by the way, Paul was replaced long before the election took place. He's only there for a short period of time. How much long should we stay here folks? Five more minutes is that OK? Five? Wait, let's see -- I want to find a friendly reporter. Are you a friendly reporter? Watch out -- watch how friendly he is. Go ahead.

    ... ... ...

    Trump: I'm working on it. Look, just so you understand. We had a totally divided country for eight years and long before that, in all fairness to President Obama, long before President Obama, we have had a very divided -- I didn't come along and divide this country. This country was seriously divided. We are going to work on it very hard one of the question that was asked, very good question about inner cities, that's part of it. But we're going to work on education, we're going to work on -- going to stop -- try to stop the crime, great law enforcement officials. We're not going to try to -- we're going to stop crime. But it's very important to me. But this isn't Donald Trump that divided a nation.

    We went eight years with President Obama and we went many years before President Obama. We lived in a divided nation. And I am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that. I want to thank everybody very much. It's a great honor to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

    Zorba's idea -> BigFatUglyBubble Feb 19, 2017 7:07 PM

    President Trump has been in office for one month. I don't recall a lot of noise with Barry's first 30 days other than the ooohhs and aaahhs from the presser's. So, with all due respect, its not unreasonable to give the POTUS some slack while he's trying to form a cabinet in what looks like an unprecedented hostile environment with the losing side.

    Regarding "our debt based economic system"...the ponzi scheme, an accurate term to describe the Federal Reserve, consider that come April, there will be three vacancies on the FED's seven member Board of Governors. It is Trumps perogative to fill them.

    In 2018, Both Yellen's and her Vice Chairman's leadership terms expire.

    Trump's appointments will make up the majority of the FED's Board of Governors which is responsible for regulating the banksters and making the nation's monetary policy. Lastly, I can't remember the last time I heard a sitting president express views regarding the need to address the burdens that the FED's policiies have had on american busininess and american workers suggesting the FED's bad financial deals made with global bankers are without transparency, accountability, or the authority to do so. Much to be done, much to be seen. Meanwhile, ease up a bit, this is more than cleaning up a messy kitchen sink.

    [Feb 19, 2017] All standard color revolution tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance and hostility is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenario

    Notable quotes:
    "... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
    "... All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. ..."
    "... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
    "... Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 10:12 PM

    Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation police state. The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.

    Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.

    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the divide between the intelligence community and Trump.

    "Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.

    Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_ZfKmcnSk

    Defiant Christian Infidels

    Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist alliance. Deus Vult!

    Mike V

    In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know about this from WikiLeaks.

    How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.

    Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.

    Gg Mo

    See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.

    IT WIZARD

    Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community

    Joe

    The old Elites need conflicts, so they keep power.

    sequorroxx

    Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power.

    Trisha Holmeide

    Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.

    [Feb 19, 2017] Video: The Revolution Business: Does the USA Sponsor "Color Revolutions" and "Regime Change"?

    Notable quotes:
    "... IS YOUR COUNTRY MARKED FOR A COLOR REVOLUTION? Democratic change has been demanded across the Middle East. But was what seems like a spontaneous revolution actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by 'revolution consultants' long in advance? ..."
    "... from Journeyman Pictures, Global Research: ..."
    "... Revolution consultants are the worst nightmare of every regime. Srdja Popovic was a founder of the organisation 'Otpor', a revolution training school. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s and has now inspired a new generation of activists. ..."
    "... Political commentators like William Engdahl are convinced Otpor is being financed by the USA. ..."
    "... "The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies", says Ezzedine Zaatour of the Tunisian uprising. That book was written by an American, Gene Sharp, and is now considered the "revolution guide book", being used by opposition movements worldwide. ..."
    "... As Optor release their latest gadget, a resistance training computer game sponsored by American organisations, world leaders are voicing their concerns. "This is called a gentle coup!", insists Hugo Chavez. ..."
    "... Journeyman Pictures is your independent source for the world's most powerful films, exploring the burning issues of today. We represent stories from the world's top producers, with brand new content coming in all the time. On our channel you'll find outstanding and controversial journalism covering any global subject you can imagine wanting to know about. For downloads and more information visit: http://journeyman.tv/62012/short-film ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | theinternationalreporter.org
    April 6, 2016

    IS YOUR COUNTRY MARKED FOR A COLOR REVOLUTION? Democratic change has been demanded across the Middle East. But was what seems like a spontaneous revolution actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by 'revolution consultants' long in advance?

    from Journeyman Pictures, Global Research:

    Revolution consultants are the worst nightmare of every regime. Srdja Popovic was a founder of the organisation 'Otpor', a revolution training school. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s and has now inspired a new generation of activists.

    Political commentators like William Engdahl are convinced Otpor is being financed by the USA.

    "The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies", says Ezzedine Zaatour of the Tunisian uprising. That book was written by an American, Gene Sharp, and is now considered the "revolution guide book", being used by opposition movements worldwide.

    As Optor release their latest gadget, a resistance training computer game sponsored by American organisations, world leaders are voicing their concerns. "This is called a gentle coup!", insists Hugo Chavez.

    watch-v=lpXbA6yZY-8

    Transcript:

    Script: Revolution 00:01

    Democracy awakens In the Middle East. But what seems like a spontaneous revolution was actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by professional consultants long in advance.

    00:11 IV William Engdahl (Sound bite English)

    00:16
    These revolution consultants are the worst nightmare of every regime.

    00:21 IV Hugo Chavez
    Here you can see the symbol of the resistance!

    00:24
    These revolution consultants are funded and supported by American organisations.

    00:28 IV Srdja Popovic (Sound bite English)

    00:31
    These revolution consultants mainly operate in countries in which the western world has a clear interest. Hardly a coincidence it seems.

    00:42 IV Gene Sharp (sound bite English)

    00:48

    00:55
    Cairo in early February: The sudden appearance of the wild horseman at this demonstration shocked the world over. These aggressors on their horses stormed into the crowd and split the peaceful demonstration apart. What seemed like a brutal attack by representative of the old Mubarak regime was actually a staged affair. It was intended for the national and international Media. The Message: Egypt is in a state of Chaos.

    01:20
    Provoked by these false attacks, demonstrators reacted with violence and so the situation escalated. Always at the forefront: the members of �The Movement of the 6th of April. These men have been carefully trained for tenuous situations like this.

    01:40
    Right from the start the revolution consultants follow a specific strategy. A strategy developed by the Serbian Otpor organisation. The Organisation responsible for the downfall of Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic. This strategy, successful in Serbia in the 90s, became a blueprint. It proved successful once again when used for the revolution in Egypt.

    02:05
    IV OT Mohamed Adel, Activist, �the movement of the 6th of April�
    Otpor organised workshops in the outskirts of Cairo. In these workshops we were trained in the art of peaceful resistance. We had to learn that the police are not our enemy and that we must try to get them on our side. We had to impress people with the idea of non-violent resistance.

    02:37

    02:39
    Opposition movements from all over the world come to the Serbian Capital of Belgrade to be educated in the art of overthrowing a dictatorship. The Serbs succeeded with their own revolution 12 years ago. They now use their experience for their revolution training school �the centre of strategy for non violent resistance� or for short Canvas.

    Chief instructor Srdja Popovic is one of the few Canvas members who would show his face publicly in front of the camera. It was in his office where the Egyptian revolution was planned.

    03:14 IV Srdja Popovic , Revolution Trainer (Soubite English)

    03:26 (fast!)
    It wasn�t just Egyptians that trained here. Revolution training is high in demand these days.

    03:31 IV Srdja Popovic (English sound bite)

    03:58
    In the 90�s, Srdja Popovic organised street demonstrations against Milosevic. He started Otpor as a youth movement with some of his fellow students.
    From these beginnings, he was able to mobilise millions of people with his impressive enterprises. The financial support is coming from the USA.

    04:02
    Film: �Bringing down a Dictator�

    04:29
    Add: I had already tried everything to get rid of him. Now I found something that does the trick.

    04:37
    It works!

    04:31
    Text insert

    04:41
    Here, in front of the Belgrade parliament was the trial run for Otpor with many other Revolutions to follow.

    04:49 question Reporter (in English)

    04:52 IV, Srdja Popovic Democracy Activist (sound bite English)

    05:14
    After Milosevic�s downfall, Otpor became an international phenomenon. The symbol of the fist reappears all over the world as the signature of the revolution makers.

    Established in Serbia, the fist re-emerged in Kumara, Georgia, followed by Oborona in Russia, then in Venezuela and Iran, and at last it was used by the opposition groups in Egypt.

    05:40
    The American author and Princeton University Lecturer, William Engdahl, has written for over 30 years about Washington�s secret geo-politics. He has established a widespread information network that extends deep into America�s secret service. He is convinced – Otpor is not acting alone.

    05:59 IV William Engdahl, Author (Soundbite English)

    06:43

    06:44

    In New York we are meeting again with Srdja Popovic. We want to find out if the Otpor organisation is actually following a secret agenda of the United States.

    06:55

    But to our disappointment Popovic is reluctant to talk about his arrangements with American organisations.

    The Otpor movement was indeed financed by American tax money during the Serbian revolution. A fact that only became public knowledge after Milosevic�s downfall. This chapter however is one that Otpor is keen to close.

    07:13 IV Srdja Popovic, revolution �trainer (soundbite English)

    08:08
    Columbia University invited Popovic as a guest lecturer.

    08;15 Srdja Popovic (Sound bite English)

    08:22
    The guest from Serbia enlightens the students on the truth behind the changes in the Middle East. Who was actually behind it all? Popovic himself knew for years, but only now can he talk about it publicly.

    08:39 IV Srdja Popovic (Soundbite English)

    08:56

    09:00
    The old city of Tunis. The Tunisians were the first in the Arab world to overthrown their government. Yet the euphoria about their dictators downfall was hardly noticeable. The uncertainty of the political future leaves the Tunisian population anxious.

    For decades the people of Tunisia were oppressed by Ben Ali�s totalitarian ruling. These days the capital seems to be dominated by a loud and harsh atmosphere. Its people agitated yet overwhelmed by their freedom. The centre of the town appears like a Roman forum: everywhere heated discussions about politics.
    The new generation wants change. Most of the young people are well educated; they see themselves as westerners.

    09:45
    Until recently scenes like this were thought impossible. Suddenly the fear is gone � at least during the moment of revolt. The people are standing up; finally the world recognises the desperate political situation of their State.

    Amine Ghali has been an activist from the start. He shows us the photographs of a meeting in Morocco which was the beginning of a long hoped for change in Tunisian history.

    10`16 IV Amine Ghali, Freedom House, Kawakibi Democracy Transition Center, Tunis (Soundbite English)

    10:58
    The time was ripe for a �revolution test run�. Discontentment with the political situation had been growing amongst the population for years. Life in the slums had become desperate. Lack of food and medical care left the people without any perspective for a better future. With living conditions going from bad to worse, the Tunisians could hide their anger no more The activists saw their opportunity, they used this anger to achieve their goal: the overthrowing of Ben Alis regime.

    11:28
    OT Ezzedine Zaatour, U.G.E.T. Student Union, Tunis
    In a way we have done the same that they did In Belgrade in the 90s. Non-violent resistance, the ridicule of the regime. There was no violence on the street even when the police intervened, we did not fight. The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies, how you have to proceed when you want to overthrow a regime.

    11:50
    That book, which is used by opposition movements worldwide, was actually written in Boston USA. Here is one of the intellectual centres of democracy activists.

    The book �From Dictatorship to Democracy� is considered the Bible of the non-violent resistance.

    The author of this �revolution guide book� lives in one of the working class neighbourhoods in the outskirts of Boston.

    12:18
    83 year old Gene Sharp wrote this masterpiece. It contains 198 methods of non-violent action.

    12:26 IV Gene Sharp, Author (Soundbite English)

    12:50
    Gene Sharp taught many years at Harvard University. His work describes various strategies from Hunger Strike to the unmasking of intelligence officials.
    His assistant, Jamila Rqip, has the main duty to distribute Sharpe's work. His Book �From Dictatorship to Democracy� has been translated into 34 languages.

    13:13 IV Jamila Raqip, Albert � Einstein -Institute. (Soundbite English)

    13:37
    Sharpe�s ?guide to Revolution� is feared by Dictators around the world. Venezuela�s president Chavez called Sharp a rabble rouser in the service of the CIA In Russia the possession of the Book is considered a hostile act against the government.

    13:52 IV Gene Sharp, Albert �Einstein-Institute (Soundbite English)

    14:27 With Internet anybody has access to Sharps revolution strategies.

    14:34 IV William Engdahl, Author (Soundbite English)

    14:55
    Are all these revolutions actually initiated by the Americans?

    15:01
    We can look back at what happened during the �Orange Revolution� in the Ukraine for evidence. One has to acknowledge that the events that took place in Kiev in 2005 appear to endorse this assumption. Traditionally Ukraine was part of Russia, but by the end of 2004 the tide turned. The United Stated pumped millions of dollars into the countries opposition movements in the favour of regime change.

    15:26
    We are meeting with the two former leaders of the Ukraine revolution. Just by being a member of the opposition movement �PORA� they received significant sums of money, together with training in civil disobedience. Finally they were given a book.

    15:43
    IV Mychailo Swystowitsch, former ukraine activist

    Oh yes, the book by Gene Sharp. We all used it. And it connected us with everybody, with Otpor in Serbia, the opposition movement in Belarus and Kmara in Georgia.

    15:57

    15:59
    It was in November 2004 when hundreds of thousands of people flooded Independence Square in Kiev and demanding Viktor Yushchenko for their president. 16:10 At the end of the Revolution the crowd got what they demanded. Yushchenko become president due to the massive support he received from the western world.

    16:19 Soundbite Dmytro Poteschin, political consultant (Soundbite English)

    16:28

    16:31
    The Revolution as a happening, a celebration, this is the spirit of Gene Sharp. Every movement becomes a brand with its own symbolism: oranges in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Tulip revolution Kyrgyzstan in, the Denim Revolution in Belarus, all different symbols but the same concept and the same sponsor: The United States of America.

    16:51 IV Dmytro Potechin, Political Consultant (soundbite English)

    16;58 Question reporter (English)

    16:59 IV Dmytro Potechin , (Soundbite English)

    17:19

    17;21
    After the Revolution in Ukraine, Dmytro Potechin made a career from being a former activist; he works now as well as a revolution trainer. From his flat he instructs the opposition movements in Iran, Russian, Belarus, and Egypt. Via Skype he is able to stay in touch with all his clients.

    17:44 IV Dmytro Potechin , trainer for nonviolent resistance (Soundbite English)

    17:54

    17:57
    An Activist of the opposition movement in Belarus is online. Dmytro is planning a work shop over there, which is not without difficulties as he is labelled Persona non grata by the Belarus government

    18:11 IV Dmytro Potechin , trainer for nonviolent resistance (Soundbite English)

    18;40

    18:42
    Back in Belgrade, Otpor Trainer Ivan Marvic proudly presents his new gadget for the resistance training. It�s a computer game that simulates the fight against the power of state. Ivan is sure with that game will make his training much more effective.
    Sponsorship for the development of the game came from American organisations.

    19:04 Soundbite Ivan Marovic, Co-founder of Otpor (Soundbite English)

    19;48

    19;49
    Marovic declares, the new generation doesn�t want to read books, they would prefer to play video games, and it�s far more effective.

    19:58 Soundbite Ivan Marovic, (Soundbite English)

    20:03 Soundbite Ivan Marovic, (Soundbite English)

    20;05

    20:08 Soundbite Ivan Marovic, (Soundbite English)

    20:12

    20:14 Soundbite Ivan Marovic, Otpor trainer (Soundbite English)

    20:34

    20:35
    Despite the Internet the Revolution trainers spend most of their time travelling to countries in need of a well organised resistance. Just In the past year Srdja Popovic alone flew over 100.000 miles. His inside knowledge and experience is his capital.

    20:49 Soundbite Srdja Popovic, Otpor-founder Soundbite English

    21:29
    The Egyptians followed Srdja's rules exactly and succeeded.

    21:34

    21:39
    The whole world was watching as the people celebrated on Tahrir Square. The regime was powerless; if it had reacted with violence it would have lost its face in front of the whole international media.

    21:52 Soundbite William Egdahl, Author (Soundbite English)

    22:22

    22:23 George W. Bush former US – President 20th January 2004 (Soundbite English)

    22:28 Hillary Clinton US foreign �Minister 13th April 2011 (Soundbite English)

    22:32 George W. Bush former US � President 19th September 2006 (Soundbite English)

    22:36 William Hague, foreign secretary 8th February 2011 (Soundbite English)

    22:47 George W. Bush former US � President (Soundbite English)

    22:52
    Guido Westerwelle, German foreign Minister 6th February 2011
    You must not get the impression that what happens in the Streets of Cairo at the moment is initiated by the Western world or other foreign states.

    23:05

    23:07 The Iranian government produced this propaganda video.

    23:10

    23:12
    The video is apparently unmasking a US conspiracy group. Part of this secret gathering is Gene Sharp; author of the guide book �From Dictatorship to Democracy�. The video shows Iran is acutely aware of just how much of a threat Gene Sharp and his strategies are to their rule.

    23:30

    23:33 Venezuela�s President Hugo Chavez also voices his concerns.

    23:38

    23:40
    Soundbite Hugo Chavez
    Mr Cameraman come close, here the Symbol from Serbia and here the same in Venezuela in 2007.

    23:50 This is called a gentle coup!

    23:53

    24:05 (slow!)
    Cairo after the Revolution. The City seems quiet, apart from some religious upheaval. Remarkably few police or military forces are present. But everyday life is hard for the Egyptians. The constant fear of a counter-revolution is always at the forefront of their minds. Anyone and everyone is a suspect – a potential counter-revolutionary, who wants to bring back the old regime.

    24:35
    The old city is as vibrant as ever, only the tourist are missing. The people thoughts revolve around their immediate future � the upcoming elections. What will democracy bring for them? The established political parties? The military? Or the Islamic brotherhood? And then, what will be left from the spirit of the revolution � the hopes and dreams of the people of Egypt?

    25:13
    Adel
    The people that suggest that there was a big master plan behind this revolution; they don�t know what was going on in the streets of Egypt. We have witnessed what our country had become. We wanted the changes, and we wanted them to come from our midst. We want to be the creators of our own destinies, to fight for our rights. I cannot believe that the Americans can influence millions of people.

    25:40
    The people of Tunisian still enjoy the new freedom. For the first time they are able discuss publicly what has troubled them for decades � their former leader�s lies, the corruption, the unfair distribution of wealth. They are unsettled however, by the recent arrests of civilians and the curfews. Also the economy is a major concern for them. Tourism is slow and foreign investors see Tunisia as a risky endeavour.

    26:08 Soundbite Ghali (Soundbite English)

    26:53
    Soundbite Adel

    We are scared, especially if we are looking at the example of Romania. There was a revolt against their regime, but then the old potentate�s came back into power. We fear that something similar could happen over here. There have been talks about a counter revolution. We therefore request that everybody from the old regime who had been involved in criminal activities must now be brought to justice.

    27:13
    The revolutionary road to democracy is one filled with many obstacles. Once the overthrowing of a government is accomplished the hard work starts for these revolution activists. Civil liberties must be established and defended. For the revolution consultants this has become a very lucrative business.

    Journeyman Pictures is your independent source for the world's most powerful films, exploring the burning issues of today. We represent stories from the world's top producers, with brand new content coming in all the time. On our channel you'll find outstanding and controversial journalism covering any global subject you can imagine wanting to know about. For downloads and more information visit: http://journeyman.tv/62012/short-film

    [Feb 19, 2017] Forget Gene Sharp, John Carlarne Is The New Color Revolution Chief

    Feb 19, 2017 | off-guardian.org
    via The Duran

    Long thought of as being the 'godfather' of Color Revolutions, elderly Gene Sharp is stepping aside in favor of a much younger spiritual successor, John Carlarne.

    Color Revolutions are the epitome of post-modern warfare, and they've been successfully applied to devastating effect everywhere from Serbia to Syria. Whether as stand-alone regime change operations such as the one in 2003 Georgia or the catalyst to a Hybrid War like in 2011 Libya, Color Revolutions have arguably emerged as one of the US' preferred strategies of choice in destabilizing targeted states.

    The architect behind this new method of warfare is Gene Sharp, an expert in "non-violent resistance" strategies and the founder of the " Albert Einstein Institution ". He's published such works as " From Dictatorship To Democracy " and " There Are Realistic Alternatives ", both of which have been instrumental in honing Color Revolution organizational strategies and applied tactics. Largely credited with sparking the "Arab Spring" theater-wide Color Revolutions, Sharp is a 'god among men' when it comes to asymmetrical warfare methods, but his elderly age means that someone else must pick up the torch and continue his work once he inevitably passes away.

    A New Leader Rises

    Enter John Carlarne, an up-and-coming Color Revolution strategist from The Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Security Studies . His publicly available CV indicates that he has a wealth of experience that's particularly relevant for this field. From serving around the world as a Commissioned Officer in the British Army from 1990-1995 to being the Vice-President of the Peace Brigades International (PBI) from 1997 to the present, Carlarne has been able to combine his military training with broad NGO activity in spearheading the new tactic of "protective accompaniment".

    PBI describes this concept as "send[ing] teams of volunteers backed up by an international support network to accompany human rights defenders and communities in areas of conflict", which basically boils down to using Western "volunteers" as literal human shields in protecting "democracy" and "human rights" (Color Revolution) activists during their provocations. Undoubtedly, Carlarne's military experience helped to optimize this strategy while his leadership role as the organization's Vice-President ensured that it would be rolled out, tested, and perfected in all of the countries where the group is active.

    PBI's activity in identity-diverse countries such as Kenya and Nepal dovetails nicely with Carlarne's educational interest in Anthropology, in which he received both a master's degree (1996) and a Ph.D. (2008). During his two-year time as the Associate Director of the University of South Carolina's Rule of Law Collaborative from 2009-2011, some of his self-declared responsibilities included "liaising with government, academic, practitioner and policy maker communities – both in the US and in Europe" and "advising government officials on working with nongovernmental organizations in post-conflict settings", both of which clearly gave him an impressive list of professional contacts that he would later leverage.

    Crafting The Color Revolution

    Right after serving at the Rule of Law Collaborative, Carlarne became the Peace Studies Coordinator at The Ohio State University in 2011, a position that he retains to this day alongside his Vice-Presidential one with the PBI. The Mershon Center describes a research project that Carlarne is leading called " Training To Talk Peace: Experimental Analysis Of Non-Violent Communication Workshops ", which utilizes local diaspora communities to "act as a proxy for populations in their countries of origin" in assessing the effect that an extensive six-week "non-violent communication curriculum" has on the participants' "identity structure, interpersonal reactivity, and views on the use of coercive or punitive methods in a divisive political dispute."

    The purpose of the experiment is to gauge the effectiveness of Color Revolution information campaigns in recruiting regime change cells inside of the targeted country and in magnifying the sense of identity-separateness that varied demographics feel towards the said diverse state. To put it in a simpler way, Carlarne tests the applicability of fomenting identity conflict all across the world, likely in accordance with " The Law Of Hybrid War " which states that "the grand objective behind every Hybrid War is to disrupt multipolar transnational connective projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, regional, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state."

    His anthropological expertise is then harnessed in judging whether the experiment's results indicate that a given strategy should move forward, and if such a determination is made, then the PBI begins in-field testing against the target. Although the PBI's front page says that it only has "current field projects in Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico and Nepal", its section about Country Groups notes that "many countries do not have an official PBI Country Group but have small networks of individuals that may be able to help." To elaborate, one of the key functions of a Country Group "is developing and activating support networks that provide a vital lifeline if the human rights defenders PBI accompanies are threatened", which "consists of high-level contacts such as diplomats, members of government, and officials, and well-known personalities."

    If the Country Group's responsibilities make it sound an awful lot like an intelligence agency, it's because it essentially is, and it's reasonable to conclude that the PBI might actually be a CIA front organization. Carlarne's extensive contacts "with government, academic, practitioner and policy maker communities – both in the US and in Europe" and the government officials that he has formerly advised enable him to provide a wide range of relevant policy influencers and decision makers with the results of his field data, thus establishing a valuable Color Revolution feedback mechanism that seamlessly integrates theoreticians, practitioners, and policy makers. Carlarne's multi-layered regime change platform surpasses the precedent that was set by Gene Sharp and demonstrates how academia, private sector "volunteers", and government agencies can all be fused together in an effective operational mix.

    Training The Next Generation

    Carlarne's activities are also very forward-looking, not just in the sense of fomenting Color Revolutions and Hybrid Wars in targeted states, but in training a new generation of strategists to join his PBI organization and/or the American Intelligence Community. He presently teaches a class at The Ohio State University called " Applied Nonviolence ", where he writes that students "will select candidate countries for nonviolent transition" and "then apply the principles, concepts and practices of nonviolence within a notional setting in order to explore the strengths and limitations of nonviolence as a method for effecting long-term change within specific regimes."

    This program amounts to a series of targeted simulations in which Carlarne uses students as unwitting research assistants for his work while simultaneously seeking to indoctrinate future recruits with his Color Revolution ideology. He's currently building the " Peace Education And Training Repository " (PETR), "an online data portal designed to document peace education training curricula and materials from around the world" and which "combines information about global research, education, and peace-building programs that affect community, national and international peace and security."

    The end vision is that "the repository will form the core resource for lifelong peace leadership education", with one of the key objectives being to "attract participation from practitioners, researchers and policy makers alike". In other words, Carlarne is constructing a Color Revolution factory that aims to continually produce strategists, activists, and policy facilitators in order to dish out a never-ending stream of "democratic" and "human rights" destabilization anywhere in the world. Needless to say, PETR is on track to become the new-and-improved version of the "Albert Einstein Institute", and John Carlarne is already a lot more successful than Gene Sharp ever was in directly cultivating Color Revolution networks, fielding experimental techniques in practice, and coordinating his activities with the military-intelligence community.

    [Feb 19, 2017] COLOR REVOLUTIONS: TECHNIQUES IN BREAKING DOWN MODERN POLITICAL REGIMES

    Notable quotes:
    "... The characteristics of color revolutions are: ..."
    "... The impact on power is exercised in a special form of political blackmail. ..."
    "... Youth protest movement serves as the main tool for influencing the power. ..."
    "... At the heart of the technological scenario of a color revolution is the Anglo-Saxon (North American) ideology of democratization, suggesting the export democracy and the democratic institutions and values in the neighboring countries. 54 In practice, only their authors and their developers, the Anglo-Saxons, are able to use the technologies of color revolutions. In any country where the color revolution began to unfold, we look for the trail of North America. ..."
    www.orbus.be

    The purpose of any color revolution is a coup, i.e. a seizure and hold of power by force.

    The objects of the color revolutions are power and power relations; its subject is the political regime.

    Color revolutions have necessary and sufficient conditions for their success.

    A necessary condition for the implementation of a color revolution is the existence of political instability in the country, accompanied by the current government crisis. If the political situation in the country is stable, it is necessary to artificially destabilize it.

    A sufficient condition is the presence of a specially organized (in the form of a special network) youth protest movement.

    The characteristics of color revolutions are:

    1. The impact on power is exercised in a special form of political blackmail.
    2. Youth protest movement serves as the main tool for influencing the power.

    The color revolutions only resemble real revolutionary movements. Unlike the real revolutions, caused by the objective development of the historical process, the color revolutions are technologies that are successfully masquerading as natural processes. They differ in the level of an almost theatrical drama that Western political scientists are diligently trying to pass off as natural and spontaneous manifestations of the will of the people that suddenly decided to regain the right to govern their own country.

    At the heart of the technological scenario of a color revolution is the Anglo-Saxon (North American) ideology of democratization, suggesting the export democracy and the democratic institutions and values in the neighboring countries.54 In practice, only their authors and their developers, the Anglo-Saxons, are able to use the technologies of color revolutions. In any country where the color revolution began to unfold, we look for the trail of North America.

    There are two versions of the explanation of the causes of the color revolutions: the version of spontaneity and a version of the recreation of the color revolutions (random and not). Both versions have a right to exist, and both are not certain.

    Supporters of spontaneity of the color revolutions insist that the cause of the revolution is the objective social contradictions that are manifested in the forms of popular uprisings and mass protests of the "oppressed" people. Poverty, fatigue regimes, the craving for democratic change, and demographic situation are cited as such reasons.

    Meanwhile, when we look at the socio-political situation in almost every country where there was a color revolution, it often turns out that the existing contradictions and social breaks were not their main and only reason, although they have become a catalyst for the subsequent events.

    For example, in Egypt, until the color revolution there were the so-called subsidy for tortillas, providing access to the main product, the Corn tortillas, for the poorest segments of the population. In the slums of Cairo, however, on the roof of each hut there is a satellite TV dish, and Libyan nationals received welfare (and a lot of other benefits), which was so great that people stopped working and put to work the visiting guest workers from Egypt and other African countries; the standard of living in Tunisia, the most democratic of all authoritarian countries in Africa, became very close to the South of France (Provence and Languedoc), and even exceeded southern Italy. One of the reasons for the burst of protest movements in Syria is that Assad decided (without any pressure) to soften the authoritarian regime and began to conduct liberal reforms that the Islamists immediately took advantage of, as well as their supporters from the United States, etc.

    The supporters of the recreation of the color revolutions indicate multiple repeatable scenarios (a democratic template) of these revolutions in various countries around the world that are very different both in terms of the political system, and in the nature of the socio-political problems. They claim that all the colored revolutions are "a blueprint," and the likelihood of the recurrence of the same event on the same pattern in nature is negligible. On the basis of these findings, supporters of the recreation of the color revolutions point to a number of grounds, on which any externally spontaneous popular revolt can set a color revolution.

    Every color revolution has its own features that show technology.

    1. First, it is a feature of the Anglo-Saxons' external politics, their distinctive style of work.
    2. Second, it is a strict correspondence of the revolution to the plan of any base template (or scenario). All color revolutions develop in the same scenario using a template pattern.
    3. Third, this is how the youth protest movement is organized and used, which is controlled by the technology of reflexive control (it is also an American invention).
    4. Fourth, there are certain recurring features in the selection and the nomination of the revolutionary leaders.
    5. Fifth, in some color revolutions, revolutionary ideology that allows recognizing them as fake is completely absent. This is due to the fact that the Americans, the authors of the color revolutions, do not always understand the mentality and the psychology of the people. They want to bring "the value of a true democracy," and cannot offer an ideology that is organically accepted by all sectors of society.

    The color revolutions are often called the technology or instruments of the "soft power" as it is understood in the perspective given to this term by John Nye.55 This approach, based on the principle of analogy (externally color revolutions are non-coercive techniques of regime change), is not quite accurate and is often misleading, causing the color revolutions to be considered softer and, therefore, more a progressive and a less dangerous form of social influence on authoritarian regimes. Thereby, a campaign to promote color revolutions unfolds, in defiance of any form of self-armed coups.

    In our view, it is difficult to determine what is actually a more dangerous phenomenon for the international security as a whole: the color revolutions or local armed conflicts. The modern Middle East, immersed in color revolutions of the "controlled chaos," is a full proof. It still seems pretty obvious that modern color revolutions in nature are not a manifestation of the "soft power." Color revolutions are nothing but an organizational form of state intimidation (i.e. blackmail, the object of which is an independent and sovereign state), masquerading as a legend and slogans of the national revolution.

    Color revolutions are not "soft power." It is a hacking tool of democratic regimes in transition, copied from the Anglo-Saxon model by the non-Western countries which have tendencies of imitating. One could argue that Americans not only created a model of the democratic structure of the state, focused on the "export," but also took care of the creation of the special tools for its demolition and dismantling, if it suddenly became necessary. In today's world, such tools that act as master keys to break the political regimes of the Western liberal type, are the technologies of the color revolutions.

    Special attention is given to questions related to the risk of escalating a color revolution in a civil war or an international conflict, in the phase of an armed confrontation. Color revolutions use military force as a factor of the service function that their writers and technologists resorted in case of emergency. Military force for color revolutions is not the main tool. Its use is rather forced and secondary in character. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to draw attention to the fact that modern color revolutions really create the conditions and reasons for the subsequent military intervention.

    There is only one underlying model of a color revolution. It is the creation of the protest movement and turning it into a political crowd and directing its aggression to the current government, in order to get it to voluntarily withdraw from public office and to give up control of the country. This pressure on the government always takes the form of blackmail and ultimatums with threats of massacres and, rarely, physical attacks against the dissidents. If the government starts to resist, a color revolution enters a phase of armed rebellion. Sometimes this is accompanied by an armed revolt with the intervention of the Western countries, as it did in Libya, and may be in Syria.

    The model of color revolution consists of five main stages or phases:

    1. Any color revolution begins with the formation of the country's organized protest movement - the main driving force of the future color revolution.

      At the initial stage, before the big opening, the protest movement is generated in the form of a network of conspiratorial cells, each of which has a leader, and three or four activists on call. These networks bring together thousands of activists that make up the core of the future of the protest movement. Before becoming the leaders of the cells, many of them are trained in special centers, specializing in promoting democratization.

      The activists are recruited from the youth environment that is extremely mobile and easily entrained with different bright appeals and slogans.

      The network principle of the organization of the protest movement resembles the principle of global terrorist organization networks, which, in fact, is the same organizational technology.

    2. This network emerges from the underground to the streets of major cities at the same time and on cue, which is called the incident. Such incident can be any event, shocking society and getting a powerful public outcry. As a rule, it is initiated on purpose.

      In the revolutions in Serbia (Bulldozer Revolution 2000), Ukraine (2004), and Georgia (2004), the results of the elections were such incident, which were declared fraudulent. The revolution in Tunisia (2010), a country with an authoritarian regime, began with the self-immolation of a trader on one of the central squares of the capital: an insignificant event across the country.

      It is important that the incident would attract the attention of the whole society and would be the subject of extensive discussion, interpretation, a rise of universal excitement, and it would initiate spontaneous forms of mass behavior.

    3. After the incident occurred, the protest network rises from the underground to the streets, where a group of activists of the cells become a catalyst for massive spontaneous processes, involving all major sectors of the population.

      The mechanisms to mobilize the conflict are turned on, one of which is the "Twitter revolution" - involvement through social networks.

      The cells begin to rapidly grow with citizens that are dragged into a spontaneous protest movement and that they pushed to take part in mainly out of fear for their future. The overall mood of anxiety leads to the fact that the consciousness of men that goes into the so-called borderline and becomes subject to a mass panic reactions, general hysteria, often manifested at the level of reflexes and instincts. From this point, there is only one step from becoming a mass protest of the community into the crowd of protesters.

    4. The next step in the scheme of a color revolution is the formation of a political crowd. To do this, a large enough area (Maidan) needs to be chosen that could accommodate large masses.

      The activists lead their elected protesters to this square, where there is a complete fusion of the participants into a single mass during the hours of the meeting, known in psychology as the crowd. There is a complete emotional fusion of individuals with the crowd, where bright "revolutionary" identification symbolism begins to be to be used, in order to identify "their own" and "foreign".

      In these conditions, the mind controlling technologies affect the crowd, introducing new values ​​and imperatives, and reprogramming a person . It is these technologies that are used in Protestant totalitarian sects.

      It creates the conditions to sustain the existence and functioning of the crowd: financial security, tents, hot meals, clothing, money for the activists, means of attack (and armature ...), and etc. The "Home Front Command" is well-organized.

    5. On behalf of the crowd, crucial requirements come to those in power using the threat of mass riots or, at least, of the physical destruction. In that case, if the government does not sustain this pressure, it is swept by fury. If the government accepts the challenge and is ready to fight, the crowd becomes a major ram factor that the authors color revolution apply to those in power. In the future, such a revolution inevitably turns into a rebellion, and in some cases into a civil war, accompanied by military intervention.

    The evolution of organizational charts and patterns of color revolutions are pretty well traced by the example of the revolutions of the "Arab Spring." Thus, the "Arab Spring" revolutions have their own characteristics that distinguish them structurally and technologically from its predecessors - the color revolutions in Central Asia, Ukraine, Georgia, and even the so-called "Green Revolution" in Iran in 2009. The feedback mechanisms (iterative mechanism is well known to mathematicians) and "controlled chaos" are added to the classical scheme to implement a color revolution (i.e., a coup) that allow to control the political instability not only within a single, relatively small countries (such as Ukraine or Georgia) but across the entire region (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and etc.).

    The feedback mechanism is a special correction mechanism that allows it to identify and to eliminate the shortcomings in the implementation of schemes of the color revolutions in real-time, modifying them under specific conditions of the particular social and cultural environment. Such a mechanism was first worked out in the revolutions of the "Arab Spring," in which coups in the countries that are victims of a wave of the "forced democratization," are not carried out simultaneously but sequentially along a chain. Each subsequent implementation scheme of color revolution took the mistakes made in the implementation of the previous scheme into account. The introduction of color revolutions into technological schemes of feedback mechanisms in real-time, based on iterative schemes, is a direct result of their evolutionary development, allowing the immersion of entire regions and not just individual countries into the revolutionary processes.

    The mechanism of the "controlled chaos" is another evolutionary breakthrough in the technology of color revolutions, which allows the use of "democratic schemes and templates," originally developed for the Western type society (individualistic) in terms of traditional Eastern societies, that are resistant to the promotion of democratic and liberal values in their original form. In order for the Western and Anglo-Saxon technology of the colored revolutions started to work in this kind of socio-cultural environment, the traditional structure of the social order must first be destroyed, which is what the technology of the "controlled chaos" does (and very successfully). The main goal of these technologies is to prepare a traditional society to use technology to control mass political consciousness and mass political behavior that is achieved with the help of its "atomization," the breaking of the bonds between individuals and the community, the introduction Western type surrogate individualism into the consciousness of citizens.

    Modern developments in Ukraine (2013-2014) are also relevant to the color revolutions, as they repeat the Egyptian scenario exactly. Therefore, it can be expected that the color revolution in Ukraine also opens the way for foreign intervention, as in Libya, and may be in Syria.

    In the events in Ukraine, we can discern some signs familiar to the color revolutions in the CIS, Georgia, and Central Asia, that engulfed Ukraine in the 2000s in the "orange" frenzy, as well as in the recent revolutions of the "Arab Spring."

    Comparing the current Ukrainian color revolution with recent events in the Middle East and North Africa, it should be noted that the scenario of the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 is exactly the same as the revolution in Egypt, that destroyed the Mubarak regime, and the Egyptian president was dismissed from his post and imprisoned. There are too many coincidences, which are:

    1. the nature of popular unrest, which escalated into riots that were passed as the spontaneous, but in fact were not.
    2. a well-organized protest movement, supported by paramilitary militias, the Ukrainian nationalists, had been transferred to Kiev from the Western regions of Ukraine, where they trained all these years in special camps, studying the tactics of resistance of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Security Service of Ukraine, as well as the tactics of the war in an urban setting.
    3. the blockade of the authorities to seize the strategic and vital infrastructure of the capital.
    4. the use of mechanisms for conflict mobilization of a community, involving it in the conflict on the side of the "representatives of the people in revolt," inciting hatred against the regime, the wide ideological treatment of those that come under the influence of radicals
    5. large-scale information war
    6. a well-organized supply of the rebels with everything they need to continue the fight, including special equipment, clothing, food, financial means used for the services of mercenaries and provocateurs.

    These similarities of the Egyptian and the Ukrainian revolutions, however, are limitless. In both cases, under the guise of the people in revolt, organized and well-armed groups of rebels are included in the armed struggle: in Egypt - the Islamists , and in Ukraine - the Western nationalists. For the public this struggle that has all the signs of the beginning of the Civil War, is presented as a "national liberation movement, deployed by the people in revolt against the criminal regime."

    In both cases, "people in revolt" were opposed by the weak, indecisive and corrupt power that is afraid to take decisive action and that is slow when it comes to making a choice, torn between recent allies that tend to distance themselves from it the new conditions, makes contradictory statements, demonstrating their helplessness and discrediting itself perhaps more effectively than the opponents do. That is how Mubarak behaved. Until the last moment, he believed that the US would come to his aid and save him from his own play of a color revolution, hoping that this is just an educational measure. His hopes, however, were dashed just like the expectations of Viktor Yanukovych that an almost European Ukraine is not the wild Egypt; Ukrainians are not illiterate Arabs, and all will settle by itself.

    A few years, Yanukovych repeated the exact behavior of Mubarak: despite the obvious threat posed by the burgeoning insurgency, which began with really a trifling unrest in the so-called Independence Square, he did nothing to stop this revolution. Instead of tough but fair measures to restore order (as Alexander Lukashenko did with the "Jeans Revolution"), Yanukovych started an incomprehensible political game, playing with the West (EU and US), then with Russia, hoping that Ukraine will receive the next tranche of financial support from both sides in the background of his "intended great role in containing chaos."

    Yanukovych's weakness was the reason that at first he lost the support of the electorate, and then his supporters turned away from him that began to rapidly disperse or just run over to the enemy's side. In these critical conditions, Yanukovych still ordered the suppression of the power of the Maidan, but he did not have the willpower to finish it. When the rebels pulled in the illegal armed nationalist groups to the Maidan and began to form squads of "self-defense" out of the the bulk of the protesters, the suppression of the rebellion was only possible at the cost of bloodshed. Yanukovych did not dare to do this for the fear of, not so much, the killings, but for the safety of their capital and accounts in foreign banks, which he could be deprived of overnight could after being recognized as an "international criminal offender."

    Yanukovych's playing around with the European Union also played a fatal role. FIrst, the EU insisted that Yanukovych would strongly suppress the riots in the capital, restoring the rule of law. When he finally started doing so and the first victims appeared, the EU immediately began to blame Yanukovych's regime for human rights violations and the genocide of his own people, as well as the urgent need to make concessions to the rebels and to negotiate with them. When Yanukovych, following recommendations, went to negotiate with the rebels, they thought it was the recognition of the weakness of the government and intensified their actions, entering a phase of uncompromising armed struggle. As a result, Yanukovych and his team just escaped from Kiev, instead of continuing to fight or take responsibility for their actions.

    The differences between Egypt and Ukraine are really small: in Egypt, the Arabs came to the Cairo Square, and in Kiev they were the Ukrainian nationalists, and ordinary citizens, dissatisfied with the dominance of the Donetsk clan. In fact, in both cases citizen became "tired of those in power," which served as the catalyst for the color revolution from both, the Mubarak regime and the regime of Yanukovych. That is what appeals to the nationalists, forgetting the obvious analogy, which can be traced between the Ukrainian and Egyptian scenarios.

    In similar revolutions in Syria and in Libya, the Islamists were the ones against the regimes, with which these regime have been struggling for decades; The Ukrainian nationalists are composed of many Catholics, Greek Catholics, and many of those that adapted some Protestant sects, mostly totalitarian in character that preach extremism. In fact, in both cases, the success of the coup became possible only because of the weakness and the infinite fluctuations of the ruling regime, initially an extremely self-confident one, and then quickly fallen in spirit, serving as an example that gave a signal to its supporters "to escape if you can." In Egypt, moderate Islamists came to power after the revolution, and in Ukraine, extreme nationalists seized power, which is about the same.

    During the entire time that North Africa and the Middle East were swept by the tsunami of the color revolutions of the "Arab Spring" and the world's attention was focused on to the tragedy of Libya and Syria, Russia has not ceased to argue, when will the tide of the color revolutions return, and when will the last bastion, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, be swept away. It was pretty obvious for all that the implementation of new technologies of the color revolutions, based on the "controlled chaos," having a run-in the Arab East, thereby will not be limited to the East. A question arose: which country is next in line to be thrown in the chopper? Will it be Iran, where the so-called "green revolution" almost reached its goal in 2009?

    The states of Central Asia were called as the following objectives of the color revolutions, where the previous model of the color revolutions failed to ensure the stability of the puppet regimes that came to power in the wake of a color revolution. Belarusian partisan regime has long been a strong annoyance for the whole of the West, something resembling the Gaddafi regime; some had mentioned China. However, the wave of the color revolutions did not continue to format the Muslim East, and suddenly emerged in Ukraine, directly on Russia's borders. Hence, the obvious conclusion: the purpose of the new wave of the color revolutions is not Ukraine and not the Yanukovych regime, but Russia and its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    Russia, based on the Ukrainian experience, must prepare for the fact that it will be the next target in the list of the Anglo-Saxon color revolutions that already have the experience in eastern traditional societies and under a super-centralized state built on the principle of the "power vertical," not having airbags in the form of a civil society. A country needs a state concept to counter the color revolutions, both in Russia and, in general, throughout the CIS, having its implementation be backed by road map. It would be naive to hope that this time the wave of the color revolutions will bypass Russia. There are no miracles or exceptions in politics. It's just that the Americans have been searching for approaches to Russia, based on the experience of a test color revolution, the so-called "revolution of the white ribbons." Finally, this approach is found. Ukraine was nothing more than the last dress rehearsal for a revolution, using a country with a similar mentality, culture and civilization identity.

    The situation is similar to Ukrainian, is developing today in Venezuela. Here, a protest movement unfolds, which has all the hallmarks of a classic color revolution. This may mean that the United States, having realized a scenario of a color revolution in Ukraine, used another Russian ally - Venezuela. Moreover, we can say with confidence that this time the US created a wave of color revolutions, not in a single country (Ukraine, for example) or a region, but launched an offensive in several strategic directions making countries, such as Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela their targets, i.e. those countries that are (Ukraine - until February 2014) Russia's strategic allies.

    A color revolution in Venezuela is possible, moreover, it is inevitable. The fact is that due to the credibility and popularity of Venezuela in the Latin American world, the use of brute military intervention by the United States can be ruled out, as it was in Grenada and Panama. Therefore, in the quest to destroy the gains of the Bolivarian revolution and to undermine the pursuit of freedom by the people of Venezuela, the United States will use the "soft power," "soft" coup technologies, disguised as spontaneous acts of political processes and popular revolutions, the way it was organized in Tunisia, Libya, Syria. Libya, particularly, is an illustrative example, where the color revolution turned into a civil war, and the last one turned into the intervention by France and Great Britain, as well as the United States that later came to the rescue. Of course, Venezuela is not Libya, and here the Americans will use a special scenario, based on all the same basic scheme similar for all the color revolutions. Most likely, the scheme, repeating an armed rebellion of 2013 - 2014 in Ukraine will be applied in Venezuela, which began with "Euro Maidan."

    1. The first sign. Those protest movements and demonstrations that are currently taking place in the largest cities of Venezuela, is the first sign of the beginning of the color revolution. Please note that the protest demonstrations take place in major cities at the same time, hence, they cannot be considered spontaneous, due to a high degree of synchronization of operations.
    2. The second sign is the coverage of these protests by the Western media, in which there are signs of and the elements of information warfare. There are other signs that definitely do not point to chance and external handling of the protests. If it is a color revolution, the support for the opposition groups from the outside is a prerequisite of its success. The organization of large-scale protests, even the ones that look spontaneous, is very expensive. None of the forces within the country, sympathetic to the rebels, have such funds. As a rule, the channels of financial income in the country to organize a color revolution are quite easily detected by the financial intelligence.

    Preliminary tests of the color revolution scenarios in Venezuela were held during the election campaign, when the Chavistas actually lost (or won by a whisker) in all major cities, but won in provincial areas.

    All the signs indicate that the "controlled chaos" technology is used in Venezuela. The "controlled chaos" technology is a technology of destruction of structures and institutions of civil society that can resist the rebels and the participants of the color revolutions. They make the human environment receptive to the slogans of the color revolutions, since technology if the color revolutions were developed by Americans living in a society of individualists and liberals, for similar societies and social formations. The pure technologies of the color revolutions have stalled in the East because society is not liberal there, but organized by the communal, ancestral or tribal basis. The "controlled chaos" destroys a community structure, resulting in a lot of people being deprived of social protection and experiencing feelings of fear and panic, being forced to seek refuge, organizing into a crowd, which is then used by the directors of the color revolutions.

    In the case of Venezuela, "controlled chaos" will be necessarily involved to destroy the social unity of those, who gained a lot from the peaceful Chavez revolution, and to weaken the rest of the Hispanic world that may not come to Venezuela to help.

    There is a system of measures that help reduce the risk of the color revolutions. It consists of three groups.

    1. The first group of measures is aimed at detecting and blocking financial flows going to finance the protest movement.
    2. The second group of measures is aimed at involving the social base of the protest movement, young people aged 18 to 35, in the activities of the non-governmental organizations of pro-government orientation.
    3. The third group of measures is to create "valves to let off steam" a society to relieve tension that would not allow a society to "overheat" like a steam boiler, and then throw out the accumulated energy in the form of a social explosion.

    It is interesting that in the latest works of the Western authors (including British and French) there appear assessments of the color revolutions, which are contrary to the notions of color revolutions as instruments of democratization and formation of a democratic world as imposed by the United States. For example, some scientists are beginning (still quite cautiously) to argue that none of the color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa have brought prosperity to the Christian world. On the contrary, the "Arab Spring" has stirred up the most dangerous, extremist forces representing Islamism and forced them to withdraw from the deep underground, which the Western countries now have to deal with at the official level.

    The "Arab Spring" that began under the banner of democratization of the Arab East, accelerated the retreat of Christianity under the pressure of radical Islam, which strengthened with the beginning of the colored revolutions of the "Arab Spring." The "Arab Spring," created with the money and with the help of American and Western European allies, has become for Western Christian civilization that is already experiencing an acute crisis, the beginning of the "Christian winter." 56

    Western Christianity has put down another line of defense. It makes us seriously think about what role today he color revolutions actually play in world politics in the formation of a new world order, and what will it become if the wave of the color revolutions will not be stopped in time.


    Conclusion

    The modern world is experiencing an era of global change, accompanied by the collapse of the Westphalian system, the growth of the global political instability, the reconfiguring of the system of international relations that existed in the postwar world, international legal nihilism, the devaluation of values and a decrease of the role of international institutions, such as the UN.

    Even S.V. Lavrov in an interview to the "International Affairs" journal has noted that "the historical processes continue to gain speed. We see this in the acceleration of the deep, as they say, tectonic shifts in the redistribution of power and influence at the global level, in the rapid developments in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in a number of other areas of the world." 62 In these circumstances, it is necessary to develop a new platform for the global unification and integration, on the solid foundation where a new architecture of international relations and a new design of international institutions can be built that meet the realities of the emerging multipolar world.

    [Feb 19, 2017] Covert Action The Limits of Intervention in the Postwar World by Gregory F. Treverton

    October 3, 2005 | www.amazon.com
    T. bailey on October 3, 2005

    Under Cover, or Out of Control?

    The New York Times November 29, 1987, Sunday, Late City Final Edition (Review of 2 books, including The perfect failure: Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the CIA at the Bay of Pigs, only this book review included here)

    The torrent of revelations about the Iran-contra affair during the summer's televised hearings, and in the recently released report of the Congressional committees that conducted the hearings, has made Americans aware both of the importance of covert action in the foreign policy of their country and of its risks and costs. These two books do nothing to rehabilitate its reputation or to improve its image...

    Both men show how much euphoria about covert action was created by two early successes of the CIA: in Iran in 1953, when Kermit Roosevelt, with the help of what Mr. Treverton calls a ''strange assemblage'' - a pro-Shah mob controlled by one Iranian leader, ''complete with giant . . . weight-lifters recruited from Teheran athletic clubs'' - overthrew Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh's Government and consolidated the Shah's shaky power; and in Guatemala in 1954, when the regime of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was toppled by a small group of rebel soldiers moving in from Honduras. The action in Guatemala led officials to believe that such successes could be repeated elsewhere; it ''consolidated the ascendancy of covert action over espionage, and of operations over intelligence in the CIA,'' in Mr. Treverton's words - and it led directly to the Bay of Pigs and to the later operations in Chile that toppled that country's Government. Most of the men who planned these later activities had been involved in the Guatemalan affair.

    ''Covert Action'' is valuable not only for its brief, sharp accounts of covert enterprises (the one in Chile was undertaken even though none of the official assessments had concluded that the election of Salvador Allende Gossens in 1970 threatened any vital United States interest), but above all for the lessons Mr. Treverton draws from history, and for his own assessments. The lessons are stark. As the targets of United States action became more formidable (Fidel Castro learned from Arbenz's fate), the chances of success decreased. Success requires bigger operations - and big operations can't remain secret (as the Reagan arms sales to Iran demonstrated).

    If the covert activities go on for a long time, as they have in Angola and, since 1981, in Nicaragua, the purposes tend to expand, along with the commitment and public knowledge. When the operations entail the manipulation of foreign elements with their own agenda (the Cuban exiles mobilized for the Bay of Pigs landing, or the Nicaraguan contras, or the anti-Allende factions in the Chilean military), American ability to control them is often limited. In any case, the fine-tuning of covert actions is difficult. In Chile, the United States Government tried to maintain a barrier ''between supporting opposition forces and funding groups trying to promote a military coup,'' but local realities made this ''a distinction built of sand.'' As a result, whatever restrictions and distinctions the United States may have tried to observe, in Chile and elsewhere, it ended up, in the eyes of foreign observers, being seen as responsible for the fall of Allende, or for the acts and fate of the Shah, or as colluding with South Africa against the Marxist regime in Angola.

    Mr. Treverton deals at length with the problems of control over covert action. He shows that the enthusiasm shown for it by several Administrations resulted not merely from the ''operational behavior'' of the CIA - its bias for action over mere espionage - but also, frequently, from Presidential pressures (especially from Presidents Nixon and Reagan). But the need to keep operations secret - and the need to protect Presidents by maintaining the possibility of so-called plausible denial - meant that the activities would be discussed only by a small number of people, that insufficient debate and criticism would lead to grievous errors (such as the mistaken belief that the Cuban people would support the invading exiles rather than Mr. Castro) and that only a small proportion of covert-action projects would be reviewed by the National Security Council system.

    As for Congress, which went through a long period of complacency and complicity, it tried to reverse course after the Watergate crisis. The Hughes-Ryan Act of 1974 put an end to plausible denial by requiring a Presidential finding that each operation is important to national security, and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 required that Congress be notified of all covert operations. But both laws are full of enough vague terms and escape hatches to allow the executive branch to thwart their authors' intentions, as the Iran-contra affair has shown. Indeed, the members of Congress are in a dilemma, highlighted by Mr. Treverton: when they are informed, they are in no position to stop the action - unless they leak its existence and thereby foreclose ''the option of covertness.''

    Thus, covert action raises formidable issues in an open society. Mr. Treverton lists the realists' arguments on behalf of secret operations - especially the need to meet, if not to match, Soviet covert activities and to help one's friends in a harsh and dangerous world. But his own position is closer to that of the idealists. He recognizes that covert operations may be necessary at times. But he doubts they'll remain secret, warns about their unintended effects and long-term costs and argues against having them run from the White House or in contradiction of official policy (as in the case of Irangate). He also shows that much that is done covertly by the CIA could be done overtly by private organizations (he notes the foundations established by West German political parties that have aided democratic forces in such countries as Portugal), and, above all, he concludes that most covert-action successes have been small, ambiguous and transitory (Iran and Guatemala in the 1950's, for example).''Covert Action'' is enlightening, thoughtful and wise.

    Mr. Treverton, who writes elegantly, paints an often dirty scene in pastel colors.

    [Feb 19, 2017] David Brooks I Fear the Trump Administration Is Anarchy - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Enemy of the people, I'm an enemy of the people. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    As a neocon he really it ;-)

    Brooks said, " Enemy of the people, I'm an enemy of the people. You know what? My fear of the administration as it's shaken out so far is not that it's incipient fascism it is that it is anarchy. There are 696 appointed jobs that require senate confirmation and the Trump administration hasn't named 692 of them. So there is nobody home in the government."

    [Feb 18, 2017] The company of blackmail against Trump continues unabated

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom. ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    A Medical Theory for Donald Trump's Bizarre Behavior ... Many mental health professionals believe the president is ill. But what if the cause is an untreated STD? ... Al Franken recently raised a provocative question about Donald Trump: Is he mentally ill? On HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last week, the Minnesota senator claimed that some of his Republican colleagues have "great concern about the president's temperament," adding that "there's a range in what they'll say, and some will say that he's not right mentally. And some are harsher." Two days later, he told CNN's Jake Tapper, "We all have this suspicion that-you know, that he's not-he lies a lot And, you know, that is not the norm for a president of the United States, or, actually, for a human being." - The New Republic

    So according to the The New Republic, President Donald Trump may have syphilis and should explore treatment option as necessary with his personal physician.

    He may have contracted it, according to the magazine, in the 1970s of 1980s when syphilis was on the rise. If he didn't get it treated, it would be far advanced by now. Advanced syphilis, neurosyphilis, and manifest itself in numerous ways, according to the article.

    "Commonly recognized symptoms include irritability, loss of ability to concentrate, delusional thinking, and grandiosity. Memory, insight, and judgment can become impaired. Insomnia may occur. Visual problems may develop, including the inability of pupils to react to the light. This, along other ocular pathology, can result in photophobia, dimming of vision, and squinting. All of these things have been observed in Trump. Dementia, headaches, gait disturbances. and patchy hair loss can also be seen in later stages of syphilis."

    DirtySanchez , Feb 18, 2017 7:01 PM

    The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom.

    honest injun , Feb 18, 2017 6:42 PM

    Interesting. When Hillary was followed by an ambulance, had crazy eyes, needed to be carried to her car from time to time, had spasms, was delusional, was irritable, and had a dozen other symptoms of medical problems, the media whores told us that she had pneumonia for one day. Now they tell us that someone who puts them in their place is mentally ill. They are digging their own grave. Soon nobody will believe the retard media.

    Lost in translation , Feb 18, 2017 7:25 PM

    The "mentally ill" narrative was a trademark of the Soviet Regime, which used it to institutionalize its critics and domestic enemies.

    Now, the Neocons and their disciples are resorting to it.

    spooz , Feb 18, 2017 6:07 PM

    Hard to believe the New Republic wasn't being satirical with their "syphilis" theory.

    It seems that psychiatry wishes to make every personality type a disorder, in an effort to convince people that their specialty is based on science and perhaps to drum up business, so Trump has "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".

    Narcissim is pretty common in US presidents, and is seen as a positive trait in many respects.

    Research has estimated that the average US president's narcissism is about a standard deviation beyond the average citizen – and even higher than that of the average reality television star. We also know that narcissism in US presidents is linked to ratings of greatness. Highly narcissistic presidents like Lyndon Johnson are leaders who make big changes. Less narcissistic presidents like Jimmy Carter are rated as mediocre (but, in the case of Carter, also regarded as admired ex-presidents because they are seen as moral and caring).

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/don...

    [Feb 12, 2017] An Alleged Muslim Spy Ring - Is This Why Rex Tillerson Cleaned House

    Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    kavlar , Feb 11, 2017 10:27 PM

    What about this SPY RING?

    "I want Netanyahu to begin telling the truth, what the involvement of Israel was in 9/11. Over 134 Mossad operatives were picked up on 9/11. The FBI picked them up [and] debriefed them." - Dr. Steve Pieczenik, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

    nmewn -> Arnold , Feb 12, 2017 6:00 AM

    As I understand it, these "IT experts" also worked on Debbie Wassername-Schultz's computers. Oh no nmewn, what the hell can you possibly be thinking?! Clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt... The Russians did it! ;-)

    nmewn -> Arnold , Feb 12, 2017 7:00 AM

    They are definitely trying to quash this one as it goes against most (if not all) false narratives they've created for public consumption.

  • False Narrative: Hillary was the more competent candidate! - No, she purposely setup & ran an unsecured personal network and used it for government business.
  • False Narrative: The Russians hacked the DNC! - No, according to the dims own sources a phishing email was clicked on that could have been sent by anyone.

    • ... ... ...

    WeekendAtBernankes -> ThanksChump , Feb 12, 2017 10:42 AM

    Oldest brother had two years of experience getting paid 157k/yr. Median salary for IT Admin in Congress: 50k. He was highest paid person of all his (Democrat) Rep's staffers, including her Chief of Staff. The question is how and why? Were they all employed as a political favor in return for a large donation from anyone in particular? This should be investigated further.

    http://congressional-staff.insidegov.com/l/43573/Jamal-M-Awan

    Mementoil -> kavlar , Feb 12, 2017 7:07 AM

    So... an Islamic spy ring is allegedly acting at the highest echelons of the federal government, and "American" commentators on ZH are hammering about Israel??? I'm calling bluff on you guys.

    You are not American patriots, and you don't belong to the right.

    You are a bunch of paid shills, working to white wash Islamic Jihad and obfuscate the ongoing war which Islam is waging against the west:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/132010/arab-nations-hire-10-new-pr-agenc...

    Fathead Slim -> Mementoil , Feb 12, 2017 8:07 AM

    Oy vey, Avi. You came out and blew your cover after only 9 weeks? That was really dumb of you.

    Mementoil -> Fathead Slim , Feb 12, 2017 11:03 AM

    I don't have any "cover". I have already announced openly that I'm an Israeli. So what? I still seem to care about American interests more than most people in this forum.

    Kayman -> finametrics , Feb 12, 2017 10:59 AM

    Today's Israel exists on a foundation of Western guilt about German's murdering Jews in WWII.

    As time has passed Israel has become what the Germans were. And for the most part, they are blind to that fact.

    groaner -> kavlar , Feb 12, 2017 10:04 AM

    I think a lot of stuff on 9/11 towers is misdirection.. This is the best examination of the evidence that disproves and eliminates a lot of what we think we know!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg&t=82s

    [Feb 12, 2017] Instead of the endless perception management or strategic communication or psychological operations or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens

    Notable quotes:
    "... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
    "... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
    "... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
    "... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
    "... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
    "... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
    "... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
    "... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : February 10, 2017 at 06:44 AM

    If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control, there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.

    Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's true sovereigns.

    For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.

    If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.

    Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate operating near the Golan Heights.

    The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment views the Middle East.

    But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

    This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's "group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice, there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.

    This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries.

    But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken.

    There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures.

    But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia.

    Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance.

    The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

    In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.

    So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.

    What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/09/trumps-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads/

    Julio -> RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    Very good analysis.
    The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based on misleading the public.
    RGC -> Julio ... , February 10, 2017 at 09:43 AM
    Yes, Trump seems to want to act directly but he also seems to often be off-target.

    My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons.

    sanjait said in reply to RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM
    I am all for transparency but very strongly opposed to asinine conspiracy theories.
    RGC -> sanjait... , February 10, 2017 at 11:29 AM
    Why should anyone care? Maybe you should actually learn something about a topic before you comment on it.

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

    [Feb 12, 2017] Russia Will Not Sell Snowden To Trump; Heres Why Zero Hedge

    Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

    On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.

    The report obviously worried Snowden himself, who tweeted that the report proved that he was not and never had been a Russian agent . That suggests that he took the report seriously.

    Snowden should not be worried, since the report is groundless and is clearly a provocation. To see why it is only necessary to look at the NBC report itself , which makes it clear who is behind it...

    U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.

    That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to "curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.

    (bold italics added)

    It turns out that the story does not originate in Russia. It originates with our old friends the 'anonymous officials' of the US intelligence community.

    One of these officials claims that the story is based on "intelligence" of "Russian conversations" that the US intelligence community has 'gathered since the inauguration". We have no way of knowing at what level these "conversations" took place, assuming they took place at all, but it is inconceivable that the US intelligence community is genuinely informed of discussions within the top level of the Russian leadership – where such a question would be discussed – or if it is that it would publicise the fact by blurting the fact out to NBC.

    The reality is that there is no possibility of the Russians handing Snowden over to the US in order to please Donald Trump . Not only would doing so almost certainly breach Russian law – as Snowden's lawyer, who has denied the whole story , has pointed out – but it contradicts what I personally heard Russian President Putin say at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2014 when the subject of Snowden was brought up, which is that Russia never hands over people like Snowden once they have gained asylum in Russia. That is indeed Russian practice extending far back into the Soviet period, and I can think of no exceptions to it.

    As it happens Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has denied the story in a Facebook post which links it to the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the US intelligence community (about which see more below). Here is how RT translates her post

    Today, US intelligence agencies have stepped up their work, updating two stale stories, 'Russia can gift Snowden to Trump' and 'confirmation found on the details of the scandalous dossier on Trump allegedly collected by an ex-employee of British intelligence.' But it may seem so only to those who do not understand the essence of the game. None of these statements have been made by representatives of the special services, but is information coming from NBC and CNN, citing unnamed sources. The difference is obvious, but only to experts. Yet it is useful for scandalizing the public and maintaining a degree of [public outrage] .

    It is evident that the pressure on the new administration on the part of political opponents within the United States continues, bargaining is going on. And that's why the US foreign policy doctrine has not yet been formed

    It is just possible that US intelligence overheard some gossip in Moscow about the Kremlin handing Snowden over to Donald Trump in order to curry favour with him. The various reports the US intelligence community released during the Clinton leaks hacking scandal show that the US intelligence community is not actually very well informed about what goes on in Moscow or how the Russian government works. In light of that it would not be entirely surprising if someone overheard some gossip about Snowden in Moscow which the US intelligence community is over-interpreting.

    Far more likely however is that – as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in seeking better relations with Russia.

    This story is interesting not because of what it says about what the Russians are going to do to Snowden – which in reality is nothing. Rather it is interesting because it shows the degree to which Snowden continues to be an object of obsession for the US intelligence community.

    The reason for that is that the US intelligence community knows that Snowden is not a Russian spy.

    As Snowden has pointed out, if he really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would be talking about the Russians handing him over. The Russians do not hand their spies over any more than the US does, and if Snowden really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would talking about the Russians handing him over.

    However if Snowden had been a Russian spy his actions would in that case have been simply a Russian intelligence operation of which the US intelligence community was the victim, of which there have been many since the Second World War. Espionage is what the US and Russia routinely do to each other, and there would be nothing remarkable about Snowden in that case.

    It is the fact that Snowden is on the contrary a deeply patriotic American who acted from patriotic motives that has the US intelligence community enraged and alarmed. From their point of view having a patriotic American publicly expose their practices Jason Bourne style is a far greater threat than have a Russian spy penetrate their systems, since because of the far greater publicity it is far more likely to damage them politically.

    This explains the extraordinary feud the US intelligence community has waged against Snowden, which in part explains why it has become so hostile to Russia, the country which has become his protector.

    Mr.Sono -> knukles •Feb 12, 2017 5:41 PM
    Putin is a man of his words and not a little bitch like Obama. I was suprised that fake news was all over zerohedge regarding this topic, but at the end zerohedge confirmed the fake news.
    Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter •Feb 12, 2017 5:35 PM
    One of the smartest plays the deep state could make is allowing him back, make small fuss, and issue a pardon. It would go far in deflating, diffusing the situation, de minimis so to speak. But, I suppose it is more about absolute control, control of the narrative, full spectrum dominance, cautionary tales etc. Pride goeth before the fall (destruction) I believe. Eventually this laundry is going to get sorted and cleaned, one way or the other.
    boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:13 PM
    " as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in seeking better relations with Russia."

    A full pardon from Trump would improve his standing with the American people, IMHO, on both the left and the right.

    HumanMan -> boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:29 PM
    This was my thought when the story broke. Putin can no longer claim to be a protector of human rights if he hands over Snowden...Unless Trump is going to pardon him. As you pointed you, that would be great (politically) for Trump too. Done this way would be a win win for the two and another win for We The People. On top of that, Putin doesn't want to babysit Snowden. I'm sure the Russians would be happy to have a politically expediant way to get the American spy out of their country.
    HRClinton •Feb 12, 2017 5:16 PM
    The Deep State rules, no matter what DJT thinks.

    The roots go deep in my fomer DOS and in the CIA Even in the DOD and Senate. Bill and I know this better than anyone.

    FAKE NEWS:

    On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.

    How many gringos were fooled???--- not many

    shovelhead •Feb 12, 2017 5:37 PM
    Pissgate II...

    Brought to you from your friends at the CIA

    Mr. Crisp •Feb 12, 2017 5:50 PM
    Snowden showed the world that the NSA wasn't just tracking terrorists, they were tracking pretty much everyone, everywhere. He deserves a full pardon.

    [Feb 08, 2017] The policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and brute force interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states

    Feb 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    Alan Dale on November 27, 2016

    An Essential Addition to an Essential Body of Work

    Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."

    By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror.

    Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."

    Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack; The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.

    [Feb 04, 2017] A color revolution is under way in the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
    "... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
    "... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
    "... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
    "... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
    "... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
    "... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
    "... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
    "... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
    "... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
    "... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
    "... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
    "... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
    "... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
    "... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
    "... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
    Feb 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    Politico seems to feel the same way. See their recent cover :

    While I did predict that " The USA is about to face the worst crisis of its history " as far back as October of last year, a month before the elections, I have to admit that I am surprised and amazed at the magnitude of the struggle which we see taking place before our eyes. It is now clear that the Neocons did declare war on Trump and some, like Paul Craig Roberts, believe that Trump has now returned them the favor . I sure hope that he is right.

    Let's look at one telling example:

    US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk.

    According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former

    Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.

    He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing.

    Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).

    That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet Nomenklatura , roughly 3 million people (and even bigger mistake!).

    But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.

    By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin.

    Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon

    This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.

    In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the " pussyhat revolution " as explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists, you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image on the right shows.

    This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.

    This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".

    Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:

    Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not once, but twice.

    What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!

    How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for rebellion and sedition ?

    So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they were well covered by the media:

    Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example:

    Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children".

    Want even more proof?

    Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select just two:

    The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA and Trump is the ultimate Evil.

    This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.

    My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.

    One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.

    The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    Can he do that?

    Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card: General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces to ensure "collaboration".

    However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.

    Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way: while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis), the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash and burn into the scandal.

    9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).

    I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal: the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".

    You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.

    1. First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
    2. Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
    3. Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic?
    4. Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.

    There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.

    Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?

    I don't know.

    I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular" military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces). SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.

    Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough. Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.

    One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street" take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists, all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve their goals.

    The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

    I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think of as "deplorables

    It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word " быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

    [Feb 01, 2017] Neoliberal Hypocrite of the Month for February 2017: Former Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

    Feb 01, 2017 | blackagendareport.com
    Madeleine Albright got her start as the protégé of notorious cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was her dissertation advisor at Columbia. As Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Z-big put Albright on as his special assistant. The next time a Democrat occupied the White House she was UN ambassador in Clinton's first term and secretary of state in his second. Madeleine Albright famously asserted in a 1996 60 Minutes interview that although the US blockade of Iraq which she vigorously championed killed a half million Iraqi children that "...it was a hard choice but it was worth it..."
    Enrique Ferro's insight: "Progressives" is the name Democrats call themselves when they need to draw attention away from the greedy and murderous one percenters who actually call the shots in their party. Lazy, hypocritical progressive followers protest the unconstitutional machinations of Republican administrations like those of George W. Bush and Donald Trump while they ignore excuse the same crimes when committed by Democrats like the Clintons or Barack Obama.

    [Feb 01, 2017] Is nationalism natural or relatively recent contruct, not older then several hundreds years

    It depends on how you define nationalism...
    Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    realpc : January 22, 2017 at 06:39 PM , 2017 at 06:39 PM

    Nationalism is natural. You either have nations or you have one big all-powerful world government.

    Caring about your own nation first is common sense. Incredible that Trump even has to say it. But in this crazy political environment, it has to be said.

    If you don't put yourself first, you will stop existing. If you don't put your nation first, it will stop existing.

    All software developers understand modular design. Nature is designed modularly, and human society is part of nature.

    We have nations because we are part of nature.

    Sure you can love the whole world if you want. But if you care more about the rest of the world than your own nation, you are nuts. And yes, it is normal to be nuts these days.

    DrDick -> realpc... , -1
    "Nationalism is natural"

    Proving once again that you are an idiot who knows nothing. Nationalism is an artificial construct which only emerges in the late 18th-early 19th centuries, and does not spread widely until the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

    libezkova -> DrDick... , February 01, 2017 at 08:08 PM
    "Nationalism is an artificial construct which only emerges in the late 18th-early 19th centuries, and does not spread widely until the late 19th-early 20th centuries."

    Nationalism is not something fixed. There are various flavors of nationalism. Old flavor was so called "ethnic nationalism". Now so called "cultural nationalism" (the idea that the language and culture defines the belonging to the particular nation, not so much ethnicity ) is pretty widespread, if not dominant.

    As for your "late 18th" century origin, I have doubts. What Napoleon empire represented, if not the Triumph of French nationalism. And Waterloo was fought when? Right, 18 June 1815. This is the date when "old continental powers" defeated French nationalism.

    Can you explain to me this discrepancy, please?

    == quote from Wikipedia ==
    Napoleon Bonaparte promoted French nationalism based upon the ideals of the French Revolution such as the idea of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and justified French expansionism and French military campaigns on the claim that France had the right to spread the enlightened ideals of the French Revolution across Europe, and also to expand France into its so-called "natural borders." Napoleon's invasions of other nations had the effect of spreading the concept of nationalism outside France.[3]
    == end of quote ==

    My impression is that French nationalism emerged from wars with England which produced a great icon of French nationalism, Joan of Arc. And that happened much earlier then late 18th century.

    And that American exceptionalism is nothing but a variation of this version of French nationalism.

    river -> DrDick... , January 23, 2017 at 12:34 PM
    I don't know the history between you two, and realpc may in fact be an idiot, but what he said above hardly proves that he is an idiot.

    "nationalism is an artificial construct?" What does that even mean? I presume it means something like what is talked about here: http://ostrovletania.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-nations-artificial-or-natural.html

    http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/stories/0503_0106.html

    So here is some quick Google information about native American tribes who fought over limited resources. I wonder if that was an artificial construct as well? Or if one tribe fought other tribes to help their own families out. I wonder if a starving neanderthal would share the meat off of a recent kill with a neanderthal not part of his tribe? Would that be an artificial construct?

    Surely Germany came into existence in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but before that, the groups that became Germany were just as nationalistic as they were after they became Germany . . . they just defined their nation in more limited terms.

    DrDick -> river... , January 23, 2017 at 01:02 PM
    *sigh*
    People pay me good money to teach them about this stuff, but I do not think either of you could pass the entrance exam.

    Read Benedict Anderson, "Imagined Communities", or the works of E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger on nationalism to start with.

    The truth is that mobile foragers(what all humans were until about 20,000 years ago) are not really very territorial.

    See the work of Brian Ferguson on the anthropology of warfare.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=CDAWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=hunter+gatherers+not+very+territorial&source=bl&ots=uqmsMIK3Jb&sig=HlrZ1Wr6nPGzsGId__be2XfR9Z4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_j625k9nRAhUY0mMKHU0cDggQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=hunter%20gatherers%20not%20very%20territorial&f=false

    river -> DrDick... , January 23, 2017 at 01:41 PM
    Sorry, I am just a stupid engineer, and make sure that the building that you live and work in will stand up in an earthquake, yet, I am probably too stupid to ever know what you know. But that said, I didn't know that I am stupid, so I will probably ask a question that will make a genius like yourself roll their eyes in disgust that I was ever awarded a degree from an american university . . . but I don't have time to read four different authors on the subject of a simple blog post, so I am going to ask it anyways . . .

    you said that nationalism is an artificial construct that only came around about 200 years ago, and I came back with some ideas about, if that were the case, then why did different indian tribes battle over scarce resources (and also simply assumed that ancient humans behaved very similar to native american tribes). You rebutted that by insulting my intelligence, pointing me to four obscure academic authors (if I was as cool and as smart as Good Will Hunting, I am sure I would have read and remembered all the authors that you are pointing me to already, but alas, I am not), and then said that up until 20,000 years ago, there was surprisingly little conflict among people.

    So, what is it, was nationalism something that came about 20,000 years ago, or was it something that came about 200 years ago. And did indian tribes wage wars against each other? If they did, is that a form of nationalism, or is it different? If it is different, explain how.

    IF you are not smart enough to be able to answer these simple questions that support what you have asserted, then I would suggest that you don't go on message boards and insult the intelligence of others!

    [Feb 01, 2017] How Colonialism Shaped Modern Inequality

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Applied Economics, MIT and James Robinson, Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
    "... Editor's note: This column first appeared as a chapter in the Vox eBook, The Long Economic and Political Shadow of History, Volume 1, available to download here . ..."
    "... "The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie." ..."
    "... See original post for references ..."
    Feb 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on February 1, 2017 by Yves Smith By Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Applied Economics, MIT and James Robinson, Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Originally published at VoxEU

    Editor's note: This column first appeared as a chapter in the Vox eBook, The Long Economic and Political Shadow of History, Volume 1, available to download here .

    The immense economic inequality we observe in the world today didn't happen overnight, or even in the past century. It is the path-dependent outcome of a multitude of historical processes, one of the most important of which has been European colonialism. Retracing our steps 500 years, or back to the verge of this colonial project, we see little inequality and small differences between poor and rich countries (perhaps a factor of four). Now the differences are a factor of more than 40, if we compare the richest to the poorest countries in the world. What role did colonialism play in this?

    In our research with Simon Johnson we have shown that colonialism has shaped modern inequality in several fundamental, but heterogeneous, ways. In Europe the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of a mass colonial project, first in the Americas, and then, subsequently, in Asia and Africa, potentially helped to spur institutional and economic development, thus setting in motion some of the prerequisites for what was to become the industrial revolution (Acemoglu et al. 2005). But the way this worked was conditional on institutional differences within Europe. In places like Britain, where an early struggle against the monarchy had given parliament and society the upper hand, the discovery of the Americas led to the further empowerment of mercantile and industrial groups, who were able to benefit from the new economic opportunities that the Americas, and soon Asia, presented and to push for improved political and economic institutions. The consequence was economic growth. In other places, such as Spain, where the initial political institutions and balance of power were different, the outcome was different. The monarchy dominated society, trade and economic opportunities, and in consequence, political institutions became weaker and the economy declined. As Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto,

    "The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie."

    It did, but only in some circumstances. In others it led to a retardation of the bourgeoisie. In consequence colonialism drove economic development in some parts of Europe and retarded it in others.

    Colonialism did not, however, merely impact the development of those societies that did the colonising. Most obviously, it also affected the societies that were colonised. In our research (Acemoglu et al. 2001, 2002) we showed that this, again, had heterogeneous effects. This is because colonialism ended up creating very distinct sorts of societies in different places. In particular, colonialism left very different institutional legacies in different parts of the world, with profoundly divergent consequences for economic development.

    The reason for this is not that the various European powers transplanted different sorts of institutions – so that North America succeeded due to an inheritance of British institutions, while Latin America failed because of its Spanish institutions.

    In fact, the evidence suggests that the intentions and strategies of distinct colonial powers were very similar (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). The outcomes were very different because of variation in initial conditions in the colonies. For example, in Latin America, where there were dense populations of indigenous people, a colonial society could be created based on the exploitation of these people. In North America where no such populations existed, such a society was infeasible, even though the first British settlers tried to set it up. In response, early North American society went in a completely different direction: early colonising ventures, such as the Virginia Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them running off into the open frontier and they needed to incentivise them to work and invest. The institutions that did this, such as political rights and access to land, were radically different even from the institutions in the colonising country. When British colonisers found Latin-American-like circumstances, for example in South Africa, Kenya or Zimbabwe, they were perfectly capable of and interested in setting up what we have called 'extractive institutions', based on the control of and the extraction of rents from indigenous peoples. In Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) we argue that extractive institutions, which strip the vast mass of the population of incentives or opportunities, are associated with poverty. It is also not a coincidence that such African societies are today as unequal as Latin American countries.

    It wasn't just the density of indigenous peoples that mattered for the type of society that formed. As we showed in Acemoglu et al. (2001), the disease environment facing potential European settlers was also important. Something that encouraged the colonisation of North America was the relatively benign disease environment that facilitated the strategy of creating institutions to guarantee European migration. Something that encouraged the creation of extractive institutions in West Africa was the fact that it was the 'white man's graveyard', discouraging the creation of the type of 'inclusive economic institutions' which encouraged the settlement and development of North America. These inclusive institutions, in contrast to extractive institutions, did create incentives and opportunities for the vast mass of people.

    Our focus on the disease environment as a source of variation in colonial societies was not because we considered this to be the only or even the main source of variation in the nature of such societies. It was for a particular scientific reason: we argued that the historical factors that influenced the disease environment for Europeans and therefore their propensity to migrate to a particular colony are not themselves a significant source of variation in economic development today. More technically, this meant that historical measures of European settler mortality could be used as an instrumental variable to estimate the causal effect of economic institutions on economic development (as measured by income per-capita). The main challenge to this approach is that factors which influenced European mortality historically may be persistent and can influence income today, perhaps via effects on health or contemporary life expectancy. There are several reasons why this is not likely to be true however. First, our measures of European mortality in the colonies are from 200 or so years ago, before the founding of modern medicine or the understanding of tropical diseases. Second, they are measures of mortality faced by Europeans with no immunity to tropical diseases, which is something very different from the mortality faced by indigenous people today, which is presumably what is relevant for current economic development in these countries. Just to check, we also showed that our results are robust to the controlling econometrically of various modern measures of health, such as malaria risk and life expectancy.

    Thus, just as colonialism had heterogeneous effects on development within Europe, promoting it in places like Britain, but retarding it in Spain, so it also had very heterogeneous effects in the colonies. In some places, like North America, it created societies with far more inclusive institutions than in the colonising country itself and planted the seeds for the immense current prosperity of the region. In others, such as Latin America, Africa or South Asia, it created extractive institutions that led to very poor long-run development outcomes.

    The fact that colonialism had positive effects on development in some contexts does not mean that it did not have devastating negative effects on indigenous populations and society. It did.

    That colonialism in the early modern and modern periods had heterogeneous effects is made plausible by many other pieces of evidence. For example, Putnam (1994) proposed that it was the Norman conquest of the South of Italy that created the lack of 'social capital' in the region, the dearth of associational life that led to a society that lacked trust or the ability to cooperate. Yet the Normans also colonised England and that led to a society which gave birth to the industrial revolution. Thus Norman colonisation had heterogeneous effects too.

    Colonialism mattered for development because it shaped the institutions of different societies. But many other things influenced these too, and, at least in the early modern and modern period, there were quite a few places that managed to avoid colonialism. These include China, Iran, Japan, Nepal and Thailand, amongst others, and there is a great deal of variation in development outcomes within these countries, not to mention the great variation within Europe itself. This raises the question of how important, quantitatively, European colonialism was, compared to other factors. Acemoglu et al. (2001) calculate that, according to their estimates, differences in economic institutions account for about two-thirds of the differences in income per-capita in the world. At the same time, Acemoglu et al. (2002) show that, on their own, historical settler mortality and indigenous population density in 1500 explain around 30% of the variation in economic institutions in the world today. If historical urbanisation in 1500, which can also explain variation in the nature of colonial societies, is added, this increases to over 50% of the variation. If this is right, then a third of income inequality in the world today can be explained by the varying impact of European colonialism on different societies. A big deal.

    That colonialism shaped the historical institutions of colonies might be obviously plausible. For example, we know that, in Peru of the 1570s, the Spanish Viceroy Francisco de Toledo set up a huge system of forced labour to mine the silver of Potosí. But this system, the Potosí mita, was abolished in the 1820s, when Peru and Bolivia became independent. To claim that such an institution, or, more broadly, the institutions created by colonial powers all over the world, influence development today, is to make a claim about how colonialism influenced the political economy of these societies in a way which led these institutions to either directly persist, or to leave a path dependent legacy. The coerced labour of indigenous peoples lasted directly up until at least the 1952 Bolivian Revolution, when the system known as pongueaje was abolished. More generally, Acemoglu and Robinson (2012, Chapters 11 and 12) and Dell (2010) discuss many mechanisms via which this could have taken place.

    Finally, it is worth observing that our empirical findings have important implications for alterative theories of comparative development. Some argue that geographical differences are dominant in explaining long-run patterns of development. In contradistinction, we showed that once the role of institutions is accounted for, geographical factors are not correlated with development outcomes. The fact that, for instance, there is a correlation between latitude and geography, is not indicative of a causal relationship. It is simply driven by the fact that European colonialism created a pattern of institutions that is correlated with latitude. Once this is controlled for, geographical variables play no causal role. Others argue that cultural differences are paramount in driving development. We found no role at all for cultural differences measured in several ways. First, the religious composition of different populations. Second, as we have emphasised, the identity of the colonial power. Third, the fraction of the population of a country of European descent. It is true, of course, that the United States and Canada filled up with Europeans, but in our argument this was an outcome of the fact that they had good institutions. It is not the numerical dominance of people of European descent today that drives development.

    See original post for references

    7 0 0 0 0 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Globalization , Guest Post , Income disparity , The dismal science on February 1, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 23 comments Jeff , February 1, 2017 at 10:20 am

    Not that I want to defend colonialism, but growing inequality both in Europe and in the ex-colonies makes it hard to argue that 'colonialism' is a driving force.

    John , February 1, 2017 at 10:38 am

    I think colonialism could be a driving force without necessarily being the sole driving force. Yes, inequality is on the rise in the first world as well, but as of a few years ago the highest Gini bracket in Europe was still the lowest in Central and South America. So there's a difference in scale.

    James McFadden , February 1, 2017 at 11:18 am

    Capitalism, especially neoliberal financial capitalism, is unstable on its own and rapidly produces gross inequality independent of the starting point - just like the game of monopoly. Colonialism, a particular type of theft capitalism, may have created earlier states of inequality, but today's inequality would exist independent of this earlier state. The root cause is compounding growth/profits/ interest as Michael Hudson has explained.

    The Trumpening , February 1, 2017 at 11:33 am

    One can expand this study by overlaying other types of colonialism. For example Spain suffered more than 700 years of Arab colonialism and succeeded in throwing off the Arab yoke just as they started their own colonial project in the Americas. How much of the failure of the institutions the Spanish left in the Americas is the result of faulty institutions the Arabs brought to Spain?

    And how does one study areas the were first colonized by Arabs (North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, India, etc.) Are the problems in Algeria today more the result of Arab colonialism or French colonialism?

    And how many of the problems today in Russia are a result of Mongol colonialism - and for that matter the same question could be asked about the Middle East? That area has suffered so many layers of colonialism (Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, European) that it would take a sort of archaeologist to figure out which problems are a result of which colonialism.

    Hemang , February 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    There were no Arabs in India. Persians and Mongols, yes. Hindu India was the coloniser in the East all the way to Indonesia. Also, both China and Japan have been colonized by Hindu/ Buddhist Institutions whose legacy can be seen even now.

    The Trumpening , February 1, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    You are correct, for India it was more a series of Muslim raids, conquests, and colonial empires and not Arab colonialism per se.

    jsn , February 1, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    The residue can be traced athousand of years latter:
    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-ghosts-of-empires-past/
    Developing tools will bring sharper focus

    Foppe , February 1, 2017 at 1:06 pm

    Euhm, this isn't personal, but imagine your response if someone took that para of yours and changed Spain to US, Arab Colonialism with Scots/Irish Colonialism, and cheered on their eradication and marginalization at the hands of, say, a realpolitik/nationalist politician, who justifies said actions by talking about how he's "liberating" Appalachia. Problematic, no?

    Arabs had been living in Spain for centuries under thug rule before a bunch of "christian" thugs thought up the idea to "justify" a handily-marketed "re"conquest of areas that had never really belonged to them, and which did not contain "relatives", while the Christianity of the people displaced by the arabs was pretty much equally novel - at best 200yo. Not really sure it's apt to compare that to the western colonization/eradication efforts that started with the expansion of Spain to the south, then west.

    Foppe , February 1, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    (Note that while I wrote 'displaced', apart from the rulers, there was very little displacement, mostly merging.)

    JohnnyGL , February 1, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Good post. However, geography does matter, too.

    It's worth pointing out that in the USA, extractive institutions WERE created in places where tobacco and cotton can be grown. However, the yields aren't great once you get north of Maryland (for tobacco) and I think even further south for cotton. The northeast of the USA didn't really have much that they could export to Britain, profitably.

    It's clear that development is driven by good quality institutions, but the real question is whether geography determined the nature of colonial era institutions that took root.

    But that's not to dispute the argument that colonial institutions created a kind of path dependency that left a lasting legacy that still overshadows present conditions.

    jsn , February 1, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    And the US has been dealing with a Manichean struggle between these two institutional inheritances ever since. One civil war over it, so far.

    Hemang , February 1, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    I always suspected Social Sciences, especially Economics of being a mumbo jumbo. This article strengthens my belief in that direction. It was not "institutions" but guns and gun powder that created the European colonial empires( though failing in China ). The genocide of native American peoples coupled with slave African labour accelerated economic development and not institutions. The same was the case with India.The article is very high on the unreadability index; mumbo jumbo at least requires a minimum measure of style that the authors lack in the English language.Savagery of Christianity in face of more sophisticated and refined ways of life like those of the Hindus in India is another factor that created inequality and not "institutions" which Indian Hindu States had in enough supplies as even a cursory glance at the history of colonialism in those parts will reveal. And now China has really developed and it is time all European Parliaments must declare their activities on other shores as Genocidal and apologise and pay compensations to those countries where they did their Projects!

    Waldenpond , February 1, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    This did not make clear to me what colonialism is. A elite group from one society or region moves into another region to exploit people and resources. Tactics are to weaken defenses (war, destroy food supplies) and get buy in from selected groups, yet maintain the majority of the gains for themselves.

    I can't think of societies that haven't had some type of political system nor inequality among individuals and groups so is colonialism referring to inequality between nations (excluding regions) with an specific form of governing (official elections) and distance? I'm thinking of a checkerboard . if the elite from one region move into a neighboring region, install themselves as the ruling class and institute slavery that is not colonialism. If the elite from one region skip a couple of squares, install themselves as the ruling class and institute slavery, that is colonialism.

    Disturbed Voter , February 1, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Exploitation is universal, because of greed and fear. If you can exploit, you most often do. When exploitation isn't about individuals, or companies but about peoples and nations, that is colonialism. The West is suffering from internal colonialism now as well, as Marx predicted.

    Synoia , February 1, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    Study the Romans, read about Augustus Cesar, reach and understanding Plebs and Patricians. The west "is suffering" from the same rule it modeled itself upon.

    Synoia , February 1, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    Their lack of understanding Anglo Saxon and Roman History is breathtaking.

    I suggest they study the Roman Empire for the roots of inequality.

    The British, and Europe (English and Norman) modeled themselves on the Roman Empire.

    Ulysses , February 1, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    "Their lack of understanding Anglo Saxon and Roman History is breathtaking."

    Yep.

    Watt4Bob , February 1, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Feature, not a bug.

    See my comment below.

    The British, and Europe (English and Norman) modeled themselves on the Roman Empire.

    As did the Mafia.

    DJG , February 1, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    If this is a foretaste of the rest of the book, it is thin gruel, suffering from the usual Anglo-American myopia. You want to talk about colonialism without talking about the Portuguese and how they differed? Discussion of North and South America with no mention of Brazil?

    I am reminded again that in my advertisements and in many parts of the U S of A, "bilingual" = speaking U.S. English + New World Spanish.

    No wonder we are where we are, Gini-quotient-wise.

    markódochartaigh , February 1, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    "such as the Virginia Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them running off into the open frontier"

    "As a part of the early history of Virginia, Jefferson once made reference to "The wild Irish who had gotten possession of the valley between the Blueridge and Northmountain,"

    Ulysses , February 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    It is difficult for me to detect any coherent argument in this very poorly informed piece.

    "Colonialism mattered for development because it shaped the institutions of different societies. But many other things influenced these too, and, at least in the early modern and modern period, there were quite a few places that managed to avoid colonialism. These include China, Iran, Japan, Nepal and Thailand, amongst others."

    How does this make any sense at all? Have the authors even heard of the Opium Wars, or Hong Kong? If so, how are they defining "colonialism?"

    The vast slave labor plantations of the antebellum South reflect how the Virginia Company "incentivized" people "to work and invest through "institutions" "such as political rights and access to land."??!!??

    The authors appear to believe that the Norman conquest of 1066 is a "colonizing" event similar to that of the Belgian colonization of the Congo, yet the British rule over Hong Kong isn't "colonialism" at all. Any undergraduate student who proposed such nonsense– in a Western Civ. class– would certainly fail the course!

    Watt4Bob , February 1, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    History is written by the victors

    Why do we continue to wade about in this trumped-up confusion as concerns a clear understanding of the operations of the European colonial outbreak, and especially Settler Colonialism?

    Wherever possible, and by that I mean wherever there was arable land available, the colonial powers, in particular, Britain, either enticed, or forced a settler population to supplant the indigenous people, and if necessary, kill them.

    The history is confusing only because our masters wish us to remain ignorant of its true nature, and its ramifications concerning modern political reality.

    The Brits colonized Ireland and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler population.

    They colonized South Africa and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler population.

    They colonized North America and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler population.

    They colonized Palastine imposed 'order' by injecting a settler population, which continues to this day.

    The truth about all this was, and is actively suppressed, and obfuscated by the very people who pretend to study, analyze, and explain history, both in academia, and media.

    Please excuse me if I point out my uncomfortable suspicion that articles like this are intended to further cloud our collective ability to understand the deep history of how and why we are 'managed' for profit.

    For instance, does it make our current treatment at the hands of America's elite more understandable if we consider the fact that maybe we've served our 'purpose' and are no longer needed, or appreciated except as a source of end-game extraction?

    David , February 1, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    At least based on the above, no mention of the Ottoman Empire either, which had (and has) enormous influence on the development of much of the Middle East and the Balkans (and of course the Ottoman Empire is not the same as the Arab conquests). I seriously question, in fact whether "colonialism" is actually a useful concept here or whether it's just too vague to tell us anything.

    [Feb 01, 2017] I expect the extreme right to cement their control of the federal and (most) state legislatures in 2018

    Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Eric Blair ... February 01, 2017 at 05:05 AM , 2017 at 05:05 AM
    I strongly disagree with Cowen's assertion. U.S. Presidential elections tend to closely follow the economy.

    Simply knowing whether or not the U.S. Was in recession in the 3rd quarter of the election year will give you the popular vote winner 80% of the time, going all the way back to the 1850s -- and includes the 2016 result.

    Econometric models forecast a very close 2016 election result, typically giving the incumbent party about a 2% victory -- which was exactly the actual result.

    If Trump and the GOP deliver a recession, that will mean real wage growth and employment, especially goods-producing employment, will decline. And the voters will turn on them.

    Peter K. said in reply to New Deal democrat... , February 01, 2017 at 05:22 AM
    Good point, but in recent years it has been the populist right who has really been the beneficiary in the U.S. and Europe, with their scapegoating of globalization and immigrants.

    "If the national Democratic Party had more cultural appeal to working-class whites, they might have been able to stop the bleeding enough to hold states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin or North Carolina."

    Yeah you won't cultural appeal but not so much that you abandon your principles. Calling them deplorable doesn't help.

    I feel the Democrats need to better appeal to them more on the economic front. Instead of giving speeches at Goldman Sachs functions, campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin.

    Instead of an infrastructure proposal of $275 billion over 5 years, go big like Bernie or the Senate Democrats with $1 trillion over 10 years. Trump went big with his rhetoric. We'll see if he delivers anything.

    libezkova said in reply to New Deal democrat... , February 01, 2017 at 11:27 AM
    I think move to the right might continue for some time. Clinton Democrats betrayal of working class give far right a huge boost, to say nothing about paving way to Caesarism and discarding the Democratic governance like used shoe box.

    From comments:

    "what is termed the Right is pretty much what would have been [neoliberal] centre leftism not that long ago.

    In practical terms there is nothing between the governments of Cameron or May vs those of Blair.

    yuan -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 01, 2017 at 09:02 AM
    "The center left will still need to do something about low wages"

    I would love to see the Greens win but, with all due respect, I think this is a complete pipe dream. Right-wing democrats and the handful of democratic centrists (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Grijalva) lack any evidence of backbone and have, thus far, proven utterly incapable of functioning as an effective opposition party.

    I expect the extreme right to cement their control of the federal and (most) state legislatures in 2018. I also expect them to utilize every tool in their disposal to repress the votes of the lumpenproletariat -- and especially people of color.

    As a union member, organizer, and genuine leftist I am very glad that I am a tri-national and am not tied to the USA by citizenship.

    libezkova -> yuan... February 01, 2017 at 11:46 AM , 2017 at 11:46 AM
    "Right-wing democrats and the handful of democratic centrists (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Grijalva) lack any evidence of backbone and have, thus far, proven utterly incapable of functioning as an effective opposition party.

    I expect the extreme right to cement their control of the federal and (most) state legislatures in 2018."

    A very, very good point. I am fully with you on that. Moreover I think the country political climate as whole is now favorable to the further move to the right. A kind of replay of 1920th on a new level with neoliberalism instead of "robber barons capitalism" under attack from the right.

    [Feb 01, 2017] The Neocon Lament Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Feb 01, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Philip Giraldi January 24, 2017 1,300 Words 151 Comments Reply There is no limit to the hubris driven hypocrisy of America's stalwart neoconservatives. A recent Washington Post front page article entitled "'Never Trump' national-security Republicans fear they have been blacklisted" shares with the reader the heartbreak of those so-called GOP foreign policy experts who have apparently been ignored by the presidential transition team seeking to staff senior positions in the new administration. Author David Nakamura describes them as "some of the biggest names in the Republican national security firmament, veterans of past GOP administration who say, if called upon by President-elect Donald Trump, they stand ready to serve their country again."

    "But," Nakamura adds, "their phones aren't ringing." And I wept openly as he went on to describe how they sit forlorn in a "state of indefinite limbo" in their law firms, think tanks and university faculty lounges just thinking about all the great things they can do for their country. Yes, "serve their country," indeed. Nothing personal in it for them. Nothing personal when they denounced Trump and called him incompetent, unqualified, a threat to the nation and even joined Democrats in labeling him a racist, misogynist, homophobe, Islamophobe and bigot. And they really got off when they explained in some detail how The Donald was a Russian agent. Nothing personal. It's was only business. So let's let bygones be bygones and, by the way, where are the jobs? Top level Pentagon or National Security Council only, if you please!

    And yes, they did make a mistake about some things in Iraq, but it was Obama who screwed it up by not staying the course. And then there was Libya, the war still going on in Afghanistan, getting rid of Bashar and that funny business in Ukraine. It all could have gone better but, hey, if they had been fully in charge for the past eight years to back up the greatly loved Vicki Nuland at the State Department everything would be hunky dory.

    Oh yeah, some of the more introspective neocons are guessing that the new president just might be holding a grudge about those two "Never Trump" letters that more than 200 of them eventually signed. Many now believe that they are on a blacklist. How unfair! To be sure, some of the language in the letters was a bit intemperate, including assertions about Trump's personality, character and intelligence. One letter claimed that the GOP candidate "lacks self-control and acts impetuously," that he "exhibits erratic behavior," and that he is "fundamentally dishonest." Mitt Romney, who did not sign the letters but was nevertheless extremely outspoken, referred to Trump as a "phony" and a "fraud."

    One of the first anti-Trump letter's organizers, Professor Eliot Cohen described presidential candidate Trump as "a man utterly unfit for the position by temperament, values and policy preferences." After the election, Cohen even continued his scathing attacks on the new president, writing that "The president-elect is surrounding himself with mediocrities whose chief qualifications seem to be unquestioning loyalty." He goes on to describe them as "second-raters."

    Cohen, who reminds one of fellow Harvard bombast artist Alan Dershowitz, might consider himself as "first rate" but that is a judgment that surely might be challenged. He was a prominent cheerleader for the Iraq War and has been an advocate of overthrowing the Iranian government by force. He opposed the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because Hagel had "made it clear that he [did] not want to engage in a confrontation with Iran." Cohen, a notable Israel Firster in common with many of his neocon brethren, has aggressively condemned even well-reasoned criticism of the Israel Lobby and of Israel itself as anti-Semitism. Glenn Greenwald has described him as "extremist a neoconservative and warmonger as it gets."

    One has to wonder at the often-professed intelligence and experience of Cohen and his neocon friends if they couldn't figure out in advance that backing the wrong horse in an election might well have consequences. And there is a certain cynicism intrinsic in the neoconservative whine. Many of the dissidents like Cohen, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Eric Edelman, Kori Schake, Reuel Gerecht, Kenneth Adelman and Michael Morell who came out most enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton were undoubtedly trimming their sails to float effortlessly into her anticipated hawkish administration. Gerecht, who has advocated war in Syria, said of the Democratic candidate that "She's not a neoconservative, but Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American power."

    That the defeat of Hillary was also a defeat of the neoconservatives and their alphabet soup of institutes and think tanks is sometimes overlooked but was a delicious dish served cold for those of us who have been praying for such a result. It was well worth the endless tedium when watching Fox News on election night to see Bill Kristol's face when it became clear that Trump would be victorious. Back to the drawing board, Bill!

    And there may be yet another shocker in store for the neocons thanks to Trump. The fact that the new administration is drawing on the business world for staffing senior positions means that he has been less interested in hiring think tank and revolving door academic products to fill the government bureaucracies. This has led Josh Rogin of the Washington Post to warn that the death of think tanks as we know them could be on the horizon. He quotes one think-tanker as opining that "the people around Trump view think tanks as for sale for the highest bidder. They have empowered other centers of gravity for staffing this administration." Rogin adds "If the Trump team succeeds in diminishing the influence of Washington think tanks and keeping their scholars out of government, policymaking will suffer. Many of these scholars hold the institutional knowledge and deep subject matter expertise the incoming administration needs."

    Rogin, who is himself a neocon who has been an associated "expert" with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), is peddling bullshit. The record of the geniuses who have been guiding U.S. foreign policy ever since the Reagan Administration has not been exactly reassuring and can be considered downright disastrous if one considers Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Think tanks have agendas that in most cases actually work against the public interest. Their designation of staff as "scholars" is a contrivance as their scholarship consists of advocacy for specific causes and ideologies. They should be seen for what they are and what they are is not very pretty as they are into endless self-promotion.

    Fear mongering Danielle Pletka, who is vice president for foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute, has supported every war coming out of the past two Administrations and has called repeatedly for more of the same to close the deal on Syria and Iran. Like Cohen, Rogin, Kagan, Gerecht and many other neocons she is both Jewish and an Israel Firster. And her annual salary is reported to be $275,000.

    It is a pleasure to watch the think tanks begin thinking of their own demises. It is also intriguing to speculate that Trump with his populist message might just take it all one step farther and shut the door on the K Street lobbyists and other special interests, which have symbiotic relationships with the think tanks. The think tanks sit around and come up with formulations that benefit certain groups, individuals and corporate interests and then reap the rewards when the cash is handed out at the end of the year. How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would be.

    NoseytheDuke , January 24, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT \n

    Even more wonderful if these psychopaths were held to account and subjected to some solitary space for lengthy contemplation. Manning is due to vacate some digs soon so there is space available.

    Kyle McKenna , January 24, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT \n

    The Neocon Lament
    Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington

    Even allowing that this is a bit of an exaggeration, it's one of the happiest headlines I've read in a long, long time.

    Now maybe we can get to work on convincing the MSM that putting "America First" isn't actually hideously racist and anti-semitic. Well I can dream, can't I?

    Cato , January 24, 2017 at 5:39 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    These losers think they are indispensable. In fact, the talent pool is deep, deep, deep. In my own social sciences department, in a tier-3 university, there are multiple people who speak multiple languages from West Asia, and keep current on what is happening RIGHT NOW. Plug them into the latest info from NSA, and they would be excellent filters–reducing the noise to policy-relevant information. If this is true in my shop, it must be true at the tier-1s and 2s. The President's team can find the talent, if they just look for it.

    Mark Green , January 24, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT \n
    200 Words

    What a delicious take on the demise of the neocons. Unfortunately, these vampires have a way of coming back from the near-dead. They're not going anywhere right away. NY-Washington is their hood.

    True, it's possible that the salaries of a few of these warstars might dip into the low triple-digits, but these rapacious insiders will never leave Washington voluntarily. Parasites tend not wander far from their host.

    Equally worrisome is the fact that Trump is surrounded by a fresh, new cabal of Israel-firsters. And the Prez has already indicated (according to MSM news reports) that he's prepared to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and 'undivided' capitol.

    Maybe this Jerusalem claim is exaggerated or fake, but even The Donald knows that by pleasing the Jews now he will likely encounter reduced political headwinds later. So like any politician, Trump's doing a balancing act.

    This unspoken truism concerning Jewish power is why the Zions generally emerge victorious in Washington. Fighting them just doesn't pay; even when you're the President of the United States.

    Cloak And Dagger , January 24, 2017 at 7:06 am GMT \n
    200 Words

    Phil,

    if our much-beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine

    From your mouth to Trump's ears! If the lobbies cease to exist, so will the bribes to Israel-firsters in Congress. Their demise would be particularly sweet as they, more than anyone, represent the vilest of 5th columnists in our government, a veritable den of vipers that personifies corruption.

    I can only scoff at the "wisdom" of these think-tank "scholars" to conceive that publicly opposing the election of a victorious president would have no negative consequences. Even the holiest of saints would refuse to turn the other cheek. The denouncements from these charlatans were remarkable. By what possible rationale would they perceive that Trump would welcome them into his government? It boggles the mind!

    I hope that Trump publicly chastises these rogues so that there remains no possibility of them darkening the doorsteps of the Whitehouse under some future sympathetic president. Ah, to see them pelted with rotten tomatoes and shamed for how they have harmed this nation! It would warm the cockles of my heart!

    I am beginning to feel the first twinges of optimism after a long time. I hope nothing happens to piss on this spark before it has had a chance to become a flame.

    Antiwar7 , January 24, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT \n

    Maybe they could organize their own Million Warmonger March?

    exiled off mainstreet , January 24, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    This would appear to make the Trump presidency worthwhile no matter how bad his domestic policy may end up being, though his elimination of the so-called "trade" pacts is already a positive development which renders many of later negative developments more reversible than the neoliberal trade pacts would have been under the harpy. The bottom line is that no nukes is good news, and that, hopefully, the arrogance and criminality of this crowd of war criminals has sealed their oblivion.

    AmericaFirstNow , Website January 24, 2017 at 8:46 am GMT \n

    ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq, Syria and beyond :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    Zionist PNAC Neocon agenda vs Russia to include in Ukraine as well :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/02/24/us-has-neocon-agenda-in-ukraine-russia-analyst/

    Let's talk about Russian influence but not Israel's :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/08/29/lets-talk-about-russian-influence/

    jacques sheete , January 24, 2017 at 8:52 am GMT \n

    I don't see what they're whining about since most of them probably don't really need the jobs and Trump will most likely implement their most cherished pro-Izzy policies in any case.

    Anyway, the more whining the better. It's music to my ears.

    Haxo Angmark , Website January 24, 2017 at 8:55 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    these Judeo-globalists aren't just warmongers, they're Class A War Criminals: the number of people massacred in the neo-cons' wars of choice – Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Syria – in Syria alone nearly a half-million dead – continues to mount day after bloody day. What's left of Syria – just look at some of the hundreds of youtube videos on that Zionist-induced butchery – is enough to make one weep; and it's only thanks to Russia and Hezbollah that ISIS – Isramerica's pet headchopping terrorists – aren't setting up shop in Damascus right now and heading for Lebanon. I wish I could share Giraldi's confidence that Trump will continue to exclude the Jew neo-cons and their Israel ueber alles machinations from his regime. But, given Trump's own well-known rabid Zionism, I fear he may eventually blunder into a terminal war with Russia over yet another object of neo-con bloodlust: Iran.

    animalogic , January 24, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    "How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would be."
    AMEN!

    AmericaFirstNow , Website January 24, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT \n
    100 Words @AmericaFirstNow CIA's Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    Israel 1st AIPAC agent Jared Kushner (who is an orthodox Jew too) is senior White House advisor to Donald Trump and is bringing in AIPAC friends as well (Trump has put Kushner in charge of bringing about a 'peace agreement' between Israel and the Palestinians):

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-do

    Additional at following URL:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/08/01/who-is-running-trumps-campaign/

    AmericaFirstNow , Website January 24, 2017 at 10:49 am GMT \n
    @Mark Green What a delicious take on the demise of the neocons. Unfortunately, these vampires have a way of coming back from the near-dead. They're not going anywhere right away. NY-Washington is their hood.

    True, it's possible that the salaries of a few of these warstars might dip into the low triple-digits, but these rapacious insiders will never leave Washington voluntarily. Parasites tend not wander far from their host.

    Equally worrisome is the fact that Trump is surrounded by a fresh, new cabal of Israel-firsters. And the Prez has already indicated (according to MSM news reports) that he's prepared to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and 'undivided' capitol.

    Maybe this Jerusalem claim is exaggerated or fake, but even The Donald knows that by pleasing the Jews now he will likely encounter reduced political headwinds later. So like any politician, Trump's doing a balancing act.

    This unspoken truism concerning Jewish power is why the Zions generally emerge victorious in Washington. Fighting them just doesn't pay; even when you're the President of the United States.

    Sharon's infamous comment: We Control America :

    http://rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm

    Wizard of Oz , January 24, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Cloak And Dagger Phil,
    if our much-beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine
    From your mouth to Trump's ears! If the lobbies cease to exist, so will the bribes to Israel-firsters in Congress. Their demise would be particularly sweet as they, more than anyone, represent the vilest of 5th columnists in our government, a veritable den of vipers that personifies corruption.

    I can only scoff at the "wisdom" of these think-tank "scholars" to conceive that publicly opposing the election of a victorious president would have no negative consequences. Even the holiest of saints would refuse to turn the other cheek. The denouncements from these charlatans were remarkable. By what possible rationale would they perceive that Trump would welcome them into his government? It boggles the mind!

    I hope that Trump publicly chastises these rogues so that there remains no possibility of them darkening the doorsteps of the Whitehouse under some future sympathetic president. Ah, to see them pelted with rotten tomatoes and shamed for how they have harmed this nation! It would warm the cockles of my heart!

    I am beginning to feel the first twinges of optimism after a long time. I hope nothing happens to piss on this spark before it has had a chance to become a flame.

    "Bribes to Israel firsters in Congress" sounds like wishful thinking (about the end of lobbying for Israel) confusing your understanding of how things work.

    Isreal firsters aren't the ones who need bribing and the effective bribing of Congressmen to vote the way any particular lobby wants is all about money given to or withheld from them or potential opponents so that their campaigns directly or indirectly have the superior funding.

    Lobbies and think tanks may trim their budgets and staff numbers under the Trump presidency. But can you explain how or why the flow of money in support of those who vote the "right way" is going to stop?

    Ram , January 24, 2017 at 11:38 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    We should NOT be too hasty to judge what's happening. Tel Aviv seems more than happy with Trump and Trump's appointments from the very same swamp that he so ridiculed, must be cause for anxiety.

    I have been disappointed that the USA has been unable to liberate itself from the Tel Aviv yoke that has been in place for many decades now.

    annamaria , January 24, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Kyle McKenna
    The Neocon Lament
    Nobody wants them in Trump's Washington
    Even allowing that this is a bit of an exaggeration, it's one of the happiest headlines I've read in a long, long time.

    Now maybe we can get to work on convincing the MSM that putting "America First" isn't actually hideously racist and anti-semitic. Well I can dream, can't I?

    Agree.
    "Think tanks have agendas that in most cases actually work against the public interest They should be seen for what they are and what they are is not very pretty as they are into endless self-promotion. Fear mongering Danielle Pletka, who is vice president for foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute, has supported every war coming out of the past two Administrations Like Cohen, Rogin, Kagan, Gerecht and many other neocons she is both Jewish and an Israel Firster. And her annual salary is reported to be $275,000."
    They are covered in blood of the innocent people. The ziocons are modern-day cannibals.

    Tom Welsh , January 24, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    "She's not a neoconservative, but Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American power."

    War crimes. Hillary Clinton isn't uncomfortable with American *war crimes* . Power is fine, as long as it is exercised justly and within the law. Clinton and her tribe have exulted in using power to trample on the law – and everyone else. Remember – "we came, we saw, he died cackle, cackle, cackle"?

    Tom Welsh , January 24, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT \n
    200 Words

    "If the Trump team succeeds in diminishing the influence of Washington think tanks and keeping their scholars out of government, policymaking will suffer. Many of these scholars hold the institutional knowledge and deep subject matter expertise the incoming administration needs."

    That's a laugh, coming from a colleague of the fellow who told us that:

    " guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ­ judiciously, as you will ­ we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

    "Scholars"? Pah!

    KA , January 24, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
    400 Words

    These think tanks are overrated But they are overrated for a purpose – to have reliable ally in media administration defense and foreign policy They ensure a continuity. Think Tank is the one -stop shopping point . It provides ready mix of useful ideas for the imperial adventures and domestic control .
    Neocons have lost the job but doesn't mean the same job wont get done or the jobs be removed from the goals and aims . Neocons are angry mad and fuming ,just like Democrats became when Bush Jr came to power and just like the antiwar ant corporate pro liberal agenda group are getting mad and furious at Trump after remaining brain dead for 8 yrs under Obama . Partisan fights for the spoils and nothing more going on here .

    It is still very good .

    There will be some nice new developments in the process of fight for lost ground,the Neocons will start tearing apart the system They are vicious just like the ISIS is .It's them or none .

    The fight will expose more truth and realities to the American public than any truth commission will ever do . Trump in his few effective and pregnant moments of arrogance and disdain have exposed more about Iraq war, WMD , role of the neocons and issues surrounding 911 than any commission ever did or could have achieved .Those wouldn't have surfaced had the neocons kept quiet and not fought Trump. Those truths were known to millions but Trump gave it the seal of approval and made those truths earn the rightful place in American narrative .

    Neocons may be warmongers Israeli firtsers but they are also self promoting bastards To promote themselves against the stiff resistance from the new elites ,they will harm the objectives of the Thinktank They will blame everybody They have a track record of doing so. They blamed Bush Cheney intelligence and military for each and every failure they they themselves brought upon America from pre 911 to -p0st 2007 . WaPo will not stay passive observer .We will be regaled by the groans and moans of the laments

    woodNfish , January 24, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    How fantastic it would be to see lobbies and the parasites who work for them put out of business, particularly if our much beloved neoconservatives are simultaneously no longer calling the shots on national security policy and their think tanks are withering on the vine. What a wonderful world it would be.

    What a beautiful thing it would be! Pass the popcorn!

    [Jan 29, 2017] How Obama Framed Trump with Faux Mortgage Insurance Rate Decrease

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
    "... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
    "... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
    Jan 29, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on January 28, 2017 by Yves Smith By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV

    (This is my first issue-opinion video. With thanks especially to Adryenn Ashley and Jimmy Dore for the inspiration. All sources and supporting evidence is below.) Within hours of becoming the 45th President of the United States , one of Donald Trump's first orders of business was to sign an executive order to " raise mortgage insurance rates " on millions of homeowners , by around $500 a year.

    But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.

    A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You

    Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.

    Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow $190,000. 

    $200,000 * .05 = $10,000

    $200,000 - $10,000 = $190,000

    Since January 2015 , the upfront MIP ( mortgage insurance premium ) has been 1.75%, with the annual premium at .8%. So when you sign the mortgage, you pay the upfront premium of $3,325. 

    $190,000 * .0175 = $3,325

    And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520. 

    $190,000 * .008 = $1,520

    As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.

    The Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045. 

    .008 - .0025 = .0055

    $190,000 * .0055 = $1,045

    That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month. 

    $1,520 - $1,045 = $475

    $475 / 12 months = $39.59

    Backlash Against Trump

    The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble, unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly, one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)

    As reported by USA Today :

    Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.

    "In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than words."

    As reported by Bloomberg :

    "This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"

    Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."

    And one of the many strong criticisms as documented by Common Dreams :

    "Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action] said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday people."

    The Full Picture

    To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.

    (Here's the PDF from the FHA, of Trump's suspension announcement .)

    In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or even a projection document justifying the decrease. As I understand it , both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.

    Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming administration was not consulted.

    Now that the timing is clear, Time Magazine's coverage is particularly misleading:

    Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.

    "Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of that time.


    (Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)

    Conclusion: It Was a Set Up

    Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."

    Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.

    You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence, "But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll keep my word."

    If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He had eight years to do something.

    This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used as pawns in a cheap political game.

    Further confirming my theory, here is what was said when the reduction was originally announced :

    "The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office." [ ]

    "I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."

    It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door. It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.

    There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.

    So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?

    To paraphrase Jimmy Dore , "The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong. Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."

    And again in another of his videos : "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."

    If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.

    If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.

    39 0 10 0 1 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Banking industry , Credit markets , Dubious statistics , Guest Post , Media watch , Real estate , Regulations and regulators on January 28, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 93 comments Lambert Strether , January 28, 2017 at 6:06 am

    "If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win."

    Let's get that tatooed on our foreheads.

    UserFriendly , January 28, 2017 at 7:21 am

    I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand for anything except identity politics.

    jgordon , January 28, 2017 at 7:47 am

    Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.

    Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable, and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:35 am

    Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general (and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.

    To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive Progressives).

    As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.

    Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders, are among my most important truth tellers.

    Jerry Denim , January 28, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Sorry for being so clueless, but "TYT", "TJDS" ?

    Anyone care to fill me in on this nomenclature?

    Thanks!

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    TYT – The Young Turks
    TJDS – The Jimmy Dore Show

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    The Young Turks and The Jimmy Dore Show. YouTube shows.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    If you voted for Hillary then you were in the tank for her. There's no such thing as the lesser of the two evils. Sorry! Same goes for TYT.

    dcrane , January 28, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    A relevant definition of "in the tank" from this NY Times Magazine article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-safire-t.html

    "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled""

    Yves Smith Post author , January 28, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.

    Brian Daly , January 28, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    But if you're White, you have no good reason to be worried about Trump? That's a rather shabby way to think about folks of all colors.

    Sorry to be snarky. It's just exasperating reading these attempts to define and claim moral purity. In a complex and compromised world.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 10:17 pm

    Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights: TYT meltdown .
    My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!

    skippy , January 28, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and religious foundations .. errrrrrr .

    Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.

    Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..

    Teejay , January 28, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting. Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.

    Donald , January 28, 2017 at 10:00 am

    The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues, so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they are just continuing what Obama started.

    It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind with these people.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    This tweet (which I found @ActualFlatticus ) sums up the dynamic you are referring to perfectly imo.

    Jen , January 28, 2017 at 7:31 am

    Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?

    Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium, which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan to value ratio of 80%.

    So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying $1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.

    Sign me up!

    So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one way on a good day.

    jgordon , January 28, 2017 at 7:56 am

    I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on. But the above post helped a lot.

    Baby Gerald , January 28, 2017 at 8:45 am

    'the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site for women and manginas '

    Thank you, jgordon, for my first hearty laugh of the morning. I'm going to bookmark HuffPo just so I can re-title it this.

    Thanks again to NC for giving me a good link to use against the uninformed masses with whom I frequently have to deal.

    lyman alpha blob , January 28, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.

    We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just created in the first place.

    Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area), prices would drop until people could really afford them.

    Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population into debt slaves.

    Marcer69 , January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there are other options such as lender paid mi.

    Marcer69 , January 28, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced

    koki , January 28, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.

    Roger Smith , January 28, 2017 at 10:40 am

    Agreed! Great article Jeff!

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    Thank you, Roger.

    nonsense factory , January 28, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .

    "Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support for working class homeowners."

    Sondra , January 28, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he acts, that delegitimizes us.

    One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband

    What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you can see on CSPAN ).
    When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.

    We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.

    Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.

    Quiet , January 28, 2017 at 7:01 am

    This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.

    By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his successor? Petty.

    Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working families."

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:13 am

    I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote), and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw middle class Americans in the process.

    That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the problem.

    JTMcPhee , January 28, 2017 at 11:37 am

    "Screw middle class Americans" exactly how?

    The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was (according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that. And how many homeowners are in the category?

    And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips and flops and dumb transactions and churning?

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    He screwed the middle class by teasing them with a rate reduction, knowing that Trump was going to never let it happen.

    JTMcPhee , January 28, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest" states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee simple absolute" is a comforting myth.

    As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.

    Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.

    And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan - but nonetheless

    hemeantwell , January 28, 2017 at 8:54 am

    This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of "Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.

    nonsense factory , January 28, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages, and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.

    But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)

    a different chris , January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    >See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls like this

    How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile, and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.

    This isn't even one-dimensional chess.

    Jim Haygood , January 28, 2017 at 7:59 am

    This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?

    It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles. Each trough is different in depth.

    Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.

    Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.

    What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.

    Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed incentives. Ditch it, Ben!

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:49 am

    In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%. My thinking was that the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.

    Brian Lindholm , January 28, 2017 at 9:23 am

    Jim,

    Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored. What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.

    I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.

    If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.

    Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.

    Jim Haygood , January 28, 2017 at 9:53 am

    An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended to protect the lender against loss of principal:

    Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However, that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.

    Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of 2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today, the share is less than 7%.

    The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.

    A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance companies to pay on the bonds they insure.

    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-the-Municipal-Bond-Insurance-Market-Has-Changed-Since-the-Great-Recession

    Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.

    Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night, before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.

    shinola , January 28, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was reversed.

    Cleverly devious?

    Brian Lindholm , January 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. "

    That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need to go up as well.

    Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all .

    Jack , January 28, 2017 at 10:12 am

    For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.

    Optic7 , January 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:

    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/232492-castro-grilled-over-lowering-mortgage-insurance-premiums

    http://www.fhaloanpros.com/2009/01/is-the-fha-under-funded/

    The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the Republicans in Congress.

    What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.

    DarkMatters , January 28, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    "What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"

    "Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."

    The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55% which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny. To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business, anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations. Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    " Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis."

    Oh Boy! That would really hurt Obama, when he'd be long gone and dancing with the stars!

    Remember, whatever he did during his term he weighed and measured a thousand times.

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    "Cheap premiums look like a free benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout."

    +1.

    Domofdoom , January 28, 2017 at 8:18 am

    Well said. What do you think would be more effective: trying to change the dems or giving up on them and setting up another party?

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    option 2

    Vatch , January 28, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/bernie-sanders-nails-trumps-pick-health-human-services-directly-wall.html#comment-2747290

    Here's the link that Martin pointed to:

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

    Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries. In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2017

    "Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia hold elections in odd-numbered years."

    rjs , January 28, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them in the 8 years he had

    oho , January 28, 2017 at 9:39 am

    EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level. Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.

    Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.

    J.P. Steele , January 28, 2017 at 9:51 am

    There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion & Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern. They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game." Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake. Arrogance & Stupidity.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:

    A)
    1: 0bama sets the trap.
    2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the trap.
    3: MSMedia circus.

    B)
    1: 0bama sets the trap.
    2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
    3: D-party denounces Trump.
    4: MSMedia circus.
    5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
    6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.

    Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?

    Yves Smith Post author , January 29, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Trump and Bannon will never do 5 and 6. They never fight on the level of detail and timetables.

    Horatio Parker , January 28, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Simple question: why did Trump reverse the cut?

    Craig , January 28, 2017 at 10:53 am

    Excellent question, it has not been answered yet:). Lotsa words tho.

    cm , January 28, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    1. It raised financial risk to the govt.
    2. As the article pointed out many times, it was a sleazy move on Obama's part

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Same reason Bush 43 reversed the last-minute reductions to water regulations that Bill Clinton passed, and Obama had to deal with

    Clinton to Bush : President Clinton Signs Midnight Regulations

    Bush to Obama : Bush's Final FU: Last-Minute Regulations That Will Screw America for Years to Come

    Obama to Trump: Mortgage rate (non-)"reduction", likely more to come

    Wiki on "Midnight Regulations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_regulations

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Not a lot of archived stuff from 2001 and before on the nets, oddly. I regret posting the CNN link up there.

    I washed my hands twice afterward.

    ScottW , January 28, 2017 at 10:17 am

    If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and for what?

    If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point of requiring it?

    lyman alpha blob , January 28, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more exotic bets.

    Anybody know anything about this?

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    I often wondered about the same thing/

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Because it's another BS fee they tack on for no good reason other than greed.

    I was in the mortgage game in 2006-2008. Now matter how many showers I take I still don't feel clean.

    bob , January 28, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    "Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought most recently with less than 20% down."

    Not banker logic. They were foreclosing on houses with equity to steal. Those houses that were valued above what was mortgaged.

    Jim F , January 28, 2017 at 10:29 am

    What gets me is people who think "shame on Trump" for not recognizing and avoiding the trap. Every single one of those people I avoid like the plague.

    Joel , January 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Re: The Young Turks

    I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Cenk Uygur – the only actual Turk on the show. It IS his show and network, but I see your point.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.

    It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.

    Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    "It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him."

    It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning,*** BECAUSE*** there was no political gain in it for him.

    There, I fixed it for you.

    John , January 28, 2017 at 11:00 am

    So Trump/Bannon got punked by Obama the first week in office. Looks like to me th e Repubs are realizing Obamacare may be a similar punkjob.

    JamesG , January 28, 2017 at 11:02 am

    "Simple question: why did Trump reverse the cut?"

    To gain time.

    To evaluate the numbers and come up with an accurate rate?

    My simple question: Why did the Ds presume it was simply "to hurt the middle class?"

    Horatio Parker , January 28, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Because it makes buying a house more expensive.

    It seems that Obama's motives may safely assumed to be deceitful and petty, but we can conclude nothing at all about Trump or his motives.

    I don't see how this "truth" advances any agenda.

    DarkMatters , January 28, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Maybe Mnuchin protecting his faction? Just another hypothesis.

    NotClairVoyant , January 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and likely designed more for political gain than anything.

    It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented back out to them.

    Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing bubble.

    winstonsmith , January 28, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.

    yan , January 28, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
    Moreover, if you can´t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that wages are shit compared to property prices and people can´t afford anything more than cheap meth or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    +1

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you announce otherwise.)

    That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.

    "So why'd you wait so long?"

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Well, Haygood was the only one to beat me to it.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical can his sycophants be?

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something "off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what was actually happening. Thank you.

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Nice to hear this. Thanks.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?

    Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program outright.

    We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in virtue.

    Yves Smith Post author , January 28, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From Bruce's comment above:

    What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.

    I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.

    If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.

    Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.

    Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted, could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted, could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?"

    A Presidential Directive, aka an executive order or executive action, can be laid at the feet of the President. So, yes, we do know. He could have taken the action anytime in the past 8 years. Note the date on this action – Jan 7th, 2017.
    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/32533-its-official-obama-to-direct-fha-to-cut-mortgage-insurance-premiums

    centaur , January 28, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    +1000, jake

    witters , January 28, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    So Obama almost nearly did something that might, maybe, have been a tiny bit useful, but then the US Constitution

    [Jan 29, 2017] The Neocons Grand Plan and Obamas Blundering Foreign Policy: An Actor Playing the Role of a President ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions." President Barack Obama, May 29, 2014 commencement speech at West Point ..."
    "... "War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.", President Dwight Eisenhower, 1947 commencement speech at West Point ..."
    "... "Politically speaking, tribal nationalism always insists that its own people is surrounded by "a world of enemies", "one against all", that a fundamental difference exists between this people and all others. It claims its people to be unique, individual, incompatible with all others, and denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind long before it is used to destroy the humanity of man." Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951 ..."
    "... " An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire." John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President ..."
    "... Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is an internationally renowned economist and author, whose last two books are The Code for Global Ethics, Prometheus Books, 2010; and The New American Empire, Infinity Publishing, 2003. ..."
    Jan 29, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm : January 26, 2017 at 04:55 PM , 2017 at 04:55 PM
    Daron Acemoglu flowing irony......... missed Egypt where generals couped to keep Camp David aid from Muslims muftis

    only domestic coups listed. missed numerous coups US imposes and the royals' funded jihadis the CIA funds to coup out Assad.

    Trumps main scare is to the CIA

    Glad all the "managers" at state resigned they don't fit a regime that don't fund jihadis neocons okay. Irony!

    libezkova : Reply Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 06:38 PM , January 26, 2017 at 06:38 PM
    A blast from the past

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-neocons-grand-plan-and-obamas-blundering-foreign-policy-an-actor-playing-the-role-of-a-president_072014

    == quote ==

    The Neocons "Grand Plan" and Obama's Blundering Foreign Policy: "An Actor Playing the Role of a President"?

    July 16, 2014 | Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay | The New American Empire | 378 views

    I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions." President Barack Obama, May 29, 2014 commencement speech at West Point

    "War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.", President Dwight Eisenhower, 1947 commencement speech at West Point

    "Politically speaking, tribal nationalism always insists that its own people is surrounded by "a world of enemies", "one against all", that a fundamental difference exists between this people and all others. It claims its people to be unique, individual, incompatible with all others, and denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind long before it is used to destroy the humanity of man." Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

    " An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire." John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President

    Am I alone in having the uneasy feeling, while listening to Barack Obama's speeches, that we are witnessing an actor playing the role of an American president and carefully reading the script he has been given? As time goes by, indeed, Barack Obama seems to be morphing more and more into a Democratic George W. Bush. Those who write his speeches seem to have the same warmongering mentality as those who wrote George W. Bush's or Dick Cheney's speeches, ten years ago.

    That's probably no accident since Neocons occupy key positions in Barack Obama's administration as they did under George W. Bush when they pushed the United States into the war in Iraq, and as they have also tried to push the United States toward a military showdown with Iran and as they are now attempting to provoke Russia into a military conflict. How Neocons can infiltrate both Republican and Democratic administrations and be trouble-makers in both administrations is the daily wonder of American politics!

    But we know the Neocons' "Grand Plan". They have published it. Indeed, this is a plan that has been outlined in many reports published by the (now defunct) Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an organization created in 1997, and whose many founders became prominent members of the Bush-Cheney administration. They have rebranded themselves as the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and have now succeeded in becoming influential within the Obama-Biden administration, especially at the State Department as leftovers of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. They and their allies are the main force behind the disastrous and incoherent U.S. foreign policies being pursued by the United States government both in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe.

    Basically, it is a plan that has little to do with the fundamental interests of ordinary Americans, and everything to do with those of some foreign and domestic entities, most prominently the state of Israel because of its influence in American domestic politics and the Sunni state of Saudi Arabia because of its crucial role in influencing the price of oil internationally. It is also a plan that fits in very well with the interests of the military-industrial complex, which needs a permanent war environment to justify huge defense budgets.

    Such a plan is based on the old principle of "Divide and Conquer" (or in Latin, " Divide ut Regnes or "Divide et Impera"). This sometimes requires creating political chaos where stability prevails. And stirring the pot is what the Neocons want to do in order to attain their goals. In the Middle East, they do it by fanning the flames of the old sectarian conflict between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims in order to overthrow unfriendly established governments and to disintegrate countries into smaller and more easily controlled parts, even though the human costs for the local populations are horrific.

    For example, even though it may seem absurd for the Obama administration to arm and support fanatical Islamist rebels in Syria while fighting them in Iraq with drones and Marines, such a bizarre policy appears rational in the eyes of the Neocons if it results in Sunnis and Shiites killing each other and if the country of Iraq is broken down into parts.

    In Europe, the Neocons have persuaded the clueless Obama administration that provoking a rekindling of the old Cold War and re-igniting tensions between Russia and the West were necessary steps to be taken in order to solidify the U.S.'s influence on the European Union (E.U.) and to establish a reframed and enlarged NATO as an American-controlled offensive military alliance that can sidestep the United Nations, justifying military interventionism abroad.

    But, because the neocon plan is often in conflict with long-term economic and political American interests at home and abroad, the neocon plan to launch a string of American-sponsored wars in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe may explain why Obama's current foreign policy appears to be so incoherent and so inconsistent. Let us elaborate.

    1- First, consider the chaotic situations in Syria, in Libya, and in Iraq, where well-armed Islamic militias are well positioned to destabilize these countries' established governments through civil wars that could easily lead to their political disintegration and economic downfall.

    However, while permanent chaos in that oil-rich part of the world may serve certain political interests, especially those of Israel whose geopolitical advantage is to weaken surrounding Islamic states and even break them up into smaller entities, and those of Sunni and oil-rich Saudi Arabia whose advantage is to profit from higher oil prices and to weaken the Middle East Shiite states (Iran, Iraq and their ally Syria), such permanent military conflicts hardly serve the interests of American consumers and workers and may threaten the business interests of the large American oil companies operating in the region.

    Indeed, higher oil prices are one of the causes behind the current relative economic stagnation in the United States and in Europe, while the possibility that Islamic militias can attack and take control of oil fields in those countries runs counter to the interests of American oil companies.

    This partly explains why there are conflicting demands being made on the Obama administration by different political and economic interests, and it has become increasingly difficult to accommodate them all, notwithstanding how hard President Obama tries to do so. Thus, the apparent incoherence and inconsistency in that foreign policy.

    Sometimes Barack Obama acts as if he accepts the neocon agenda of destabilizing most Middle East Muslim countries for the benefit of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Witness the U.S. government's financial and military support of terrorist organizations to provoke "regime change" in Syria as it has done in Libya. Remember that last September, Obama had acquiesced to his neocon advisers' recommendation to bomb the country of Syria, whose Assad government was deemed too close to Shiite Iran, before realizing that the entire cabal of justifications was a false flag operation.

    Sometimes, however, the economic costs of such instability are considered too high and a timid Obama, to the chagrin of his neocon advisers, hesitates to implement fully the Machiavellian neocon plan. President Obama then becomes the target of the neocon media who picture him as weak, "out of touch", inexperienced and irresolute, thus contributing to his increasing unpopularity.

    2- Secondly, consider the new Cold War that the Neocons have succeeded in rekindling in Europe, with their aggressive policy of encircling Russia with missiles and hostile neighboring countries and of engineering a "regime change" in Ukraine. Who profits from these renewed tensions? Certainly not ordinary Americans and ordinary Europeans. The profiteers are the empire builders and the arms traffickers, and all those who like to fish in troubled waters.

    Conclusion

    It is most unfortunate that President Barack Obama has not been able to establish a coherent and credible American foreign policy of his own, with clear principles and clear objectives, and has had to rely on discredited Neocons for advice. Therefore, he has placed himself and his government at the mercy of various and contradictory influences, sometimes jerking in one direction, sometimes in another direction. That's called a lack of vision and a lack of leadership.

    It may not be too late for Barack Obama to be his own man in his second term and to stop emulating George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. For that, however, he would have to fire all the Neocons in positions of power and policy-making in his administration. If he does not have the guts to do that, he may turn out to be one of the worst American presidents ever, on a par with George W. Bush.

    Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is an internationally renowned economist and author, whose last two books are The Code for Global Ethics, Prometheus Books, 2010; and The New American Empire, Infinity Publishing, 2003.

    [Jan 28, 2017] Mexico could take an alternative path tand announce that it would no longer enforce U.S. patents and copyrights on its soil. This would be a yuuge deal, as Trump would say.

    Jan 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : January 28, 2017 at 05:38 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/a-trade-war-everyone-can-win

    January 27, 2017

    A Trade War Everyone Can Win

    Donald Trump has indicated * that he might slap high tariffs on imports from Mexico as a way to make the country pay for his border wall. While it's not clear this makes sense, since U.S. consumers would bear the bulk of the burden from this tax, it would certainly reduce imports from Mexico. It would also would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization rules, thereby opening the door to a trade war with Mexico and possibly other countries.

    Many have seen this as taking us down a road to ever higher tariffs, leading to a plunge in international trade, which would have substantial economic costs for everyone. However, Mexico could take an alternative path that would provide far more effective retaliation against President Trump, while leading to fewer barriers and more growth.

    The alternative is simple: Mexico could announce that it would no longer enforce U.S. patents and copyrights on its soil. This would be a yuuge deal, as Trump would say.

    To take one prominent example, suppose that Mexico allowed for the free importation of generic drugs from India and elsewhere. The Hepatitis C drug Solvaldi has a list price in the United States of $84,000. A high quality generic is available in India for $200. There are also low cost generic versions available of many other drugs that carry exorbitant prices in the United States, with savings often more than 95 percent.

    Suppose that people suffering from Hepatitis C, cancer, and other devastating and life-threatening diseases could get drugs in Mexico for a few hundreds rather than tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the United States? That would likely lead to lots of business for Mexico's retail drug industry, although it would be pretty bad news for Pfizer and Merck.

    The same would apply to other areas. Medical equipment, like high-end scanning and diagnostic devices, would be very cheap in Mexico if they could be produced without patent protections. This should be great for a medical travel industry in Mexico.

    There would be a similar story on copyright protection. People could get the latest version of Windows and other software for free in Mexico with their new computers. This is bad news for Bill Gates and Microsoft, but good news for U.S. consumers interested in visiting Mexico, along with Mexico's retail sector. Mexico could also make a vast amount of recorded music and video material available without copyright protection. That's great news for consumers everywhere but very bad news for Disney, Time-Warner, and other Hollywood giants.

    Of course the erosion of patent and copyright protection will undermine the system of incentives that now support innovation and creative work. This means that we would have to develop more efficient alternatives to these relics of the feudal guild system. Among other places, folks can read about alternative in my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).

    Anyhow, this would be a blueprint for a trade war in which everyone, except a few corporate giants, could be big winners.

    * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/politics/mexico-wall-tax-trump.html

    ** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    -- Dean Baker

    anne -> anne... , January 28, 2017 at 05:48 AM
    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of Patents and Copyrights

    One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in policy debates is that, as a result of technology, we are seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living to the people who own the technology. While the redistribution part of the story may be mostly true, the problem is that the technology does not determine who "owns" the technology. The people who write the laws determine who owns the technology.

    Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders monopolies on technology or creative work for their duration. If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary workers to people who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we may want to consider is shortening and weakening these monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite direction over the last four decades, as a wide variety of measures have been put into law that make these protections longer and stronger. Thus, the redistribution from people who work to people who own the technology should not be surprising - that was the purpose of the policy.

    If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced economic dividends in the form of more innovation and more creative output, then this upward redistribution might be justified. But the evidence doesn't indicate there has been any noticeable growth dividend associated with this upward redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to be associated with slower growth.

    Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking for a minute about what the world might look like if we had alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the items now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free market just like paper cups and shovels.

    The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars. No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family. Almost every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies.

    The same would be the case with various medical tests and treatments. Doctors would not have to struggle with a decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which might be the best way to detect a cancerous growth or other health issue, or to rely on cheaper but less reliable technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most cutting edge scans would be reasonably priced.

    Health care is not the only area that would be transformed by a free market in technology and creative work. Imagine that all the textbooks needed by college students could be downloaded at no cost over the web and printed out for the price of the paper. Suppose that a vast amount of new books, recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.

    People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be compensated, but there is little reason to believe that the current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best way to support their work. It's not surprising that the people who benefit from the current system are reluctant to have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic for public debate, but those who are serious about inequality have no choice. These forms of property claims have been important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.

    The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last four decades to increase the strength and duration of patent and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting from increased protection will be more than offset by an increased incentive for innovation and creative work. Patent and copyright protection should be understood as being like very large tariffs. These protections can often the raise the price of protected items by several multiples of the free market price, making them comparable to tariffs of several hundred or even several thousand percent. The resulting economic distortions are comparable to what they would be if we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.

    The justification for granting these monopoly protections is that the increased innovation and creative work that is produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic costs from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is remarkably little evidence to support this assumption. While the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices is apparent, even if not well-measured, there is little evidence of a substantial payoff in the form of a more rapid pace of innovation or more and better creative work....

    [Jan 28, 2017] The US government has been making a mess of the world for decades with its overt and covert wars of aggression

    Notable quotes:
    "... My feel is nyt don't care for détente and prefers something like the stalemate in central Europe of 1983 ..."
    "... 1983 the year I (along with most Germans) realized I could be 'envied by the survivors'. ..."
    "... This neocon is really unrepentant Trotskyite hell bent on world neoliberal revolution and the USA world hegemony. Nothing will change such people. ..."
    "... In a sense they are real "occupiers" of the USA, the sect that keep the country, and especially its foreign policy, hostage. ..."
    "... This represents a continuation of the plan outlined by the neocon think tank known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It was the PNAC that plotted to deceive the US into invading Iraq for the benefit of Israel. (Do some Googling and reading if none of this sounds familiar.) ..."
    "... The US government has been making a mess of the world for decades with its overt and covert wars of aggression. Maybe we should insist that "our" government quit dancing to the tune of the special interests who profit from endless war and conflict (the "defense" industry, the Israel lobby, etc.) and try minding our own business in the world for a change? ..."
    "... Mc Cain and Portman are of the hillary/nuland/kagan neocon branch of the GOP. Why Jeb! was dumped. Mc Cain just came out for a nearly 50% increase in weapons buying funds! ..."
    "... US intelligence officials before the inauguration pandered to Obama about hacking! ..."
    Jan 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... January 28, 2017 at 07:13 AM , 2017 at 07:13 AM
    How much does Trump love Putin? And how worried should we be?
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/01/28/how-much-does-trump-love-putin-and-how-worried-should/ogb4ZD4DyCyKlQyX3knqkJ/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Alan Berger - January 28, 2017

    In a notorious interview with the Times of London and the German paper Bild, America's new president, Donald Trump, opined that NATO is obsolete, that disintegration of the European Union would make no difference to the United States, and that he will start off trusting Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel equally. It should come as no surprise that Trump's airing of such views provoked anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Speaking in his characteristic scattershot style, however, Trump also said he respected Merkel, he appreciated NATO, and his trust of either Putin or Merkel could dissipate rapidly. Thus it was that Trump raised vexing questions about himself.

    Is he really in thrall to Putin the war criminal? Does Trump have some sinister reason for praising Putin as a strong leader and passing over in silence Putin's propensity for having meddlesome journalists, dissidents, and turncoat spooks gunned down or poisoned with potions prepared by his special services?

    Or does Trump's praise of Putin reflect a neophyte's susceptibility to the views of courtiers such as his strategic adviser Steve Bannon, promoter of alt-right nationalism, or national security advisor, Mike Flynn, who took money from Putin's TV propaganda arm, Russia Today, and was seated next to Putin at a banquet celebrating the success of that international enterprise?

    To frame the question in a cruder way: Should we look on Trump as Putin's puppet or merely as a feckless con man from Queens who is woefully out of his depth on the great stage of history?

    Concern about a suspect relationship between Trump and Putin's regime cannot be dismissed as pure paranoia - even if there is no compromising video of Trump cavorting in a Moscow hotel with sex workers employed by Putin's security services. The FBI and US intelligence agencies had been looking into transactions between Trump associates and Putin's people well before receiving the dossier on Trump's Kremlin ties assembled by a retired officer of Britain's foreign intelligence service, MI6.

    And there is something yet more worrisome. The Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, noted for his exceptional sources in Israel's intelligence services, reported in the Israeli paper Yedioth Ahronoth that in a recent meeting between American and Israeli intelligence officers, the Americans warned their Israeli counterparts not to disclose sensitive sources and methods to the Trump White House or security council. The Israelis were told there is a danger Trump's people might pass such items to Russia's security services, and the Russians, wishing to make Iran as dependent on Moscow as Syria has become, would deliver Israel's most closely guarded secrets to Iran.

    Nevertheless, Trump's ignorance represents a greater danger than any covert obligation to the Kremlin.

    There is, after all, a rational case to be made that presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush indulged in geopolitical hubris when, disregarding Russian anxieties about a vulnerable periphery as well as verbal assurances originally offered by George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, they permitted NATO to expand from Germany's eastern to Russia's western border. At the end of the Cold War, Russia should have been brought into a Eurasian partnership with the NATO allies.

    Hence it makes sense for a new US president to seek to resolve dangerous tensions with a nuclear-armed Russia. But there is no justification for Trump's denigration of NATO and America's allies.

    Someone, perhaps Defense Secretary James Mattis, ought to explain to Trump what has made Article 5 of the NATO treaty - the pledge that an attack on one alliance member will be considered an attack on all - the key to keeping the peace in Europe. Stalin and his successors understood that Article 5 was an absolute commitment; that once Warsaw Pact troops marched westward, there would be no parliamentary debates in Western capitols, no dithering by presidents or prime ministers; there would be immediate military retaliation.

    This has been the secret of Western solidarity and the primary reason Mattis could say in his confirmation hearing that NATO might be the most successful military alliance in history. Success meant never having to use NATO armed forces in Europe.

    When Trump mindlessly hints that he might refuse to defend NATO allies who don't meet a voluntary pledge to spend 2 percent of their budgets on their militaries, he undermines Article 5. If he were sitting on Putin's lap and mouthing words from the Kremlin Godfather, his performance might be understandable. But if these impulses are his own, they suggest a perverse worldview that endangers America, its allies, and world peace.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 07:20 AM
    'It should come as no surprise that Trump's airing of such views provoked anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic':

    Trump's barbs aimed at Germany's
    Merkel seen boosting her election pitch
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/17/trump-barbs-aimed-germany-merkel-seen-boosting-her-election-pitch/8vG3sSSaUOq2EUZSdKGcmK/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
    Arne Delfs and Patrick Donahue - Bloomberg News - January 17, 2017

    Angela Merkel's advisers see a chance that Donald Trump's swipes against the chancellor could work in her favor as she seeks a fourth term as German leader. ...

    Polls suggest most Germans were already put off by the U.S. president-elect's rhetoric and policy positions even before his latest volley, published in the country's biggest-selling Bild newspaper. Though he expressed respect for Merkel as Europe's pre-eminent leader, Trump laid out stances on the European Union, NATO and the economy that signal a fundamental clash with the chancellor's defense of free trade, open borders and liberal democracy. ...

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    Does Merkel really want open borders while US neocons would war over countries kluged after WW II?

    Or is this more yellow journalism from a nyt subsidiary?

    My feel is nyt don't care for détente and prefers something like the stalemate in central Europe of 1983.

    1983 the year I (along with most Germans) realized I could be 'envied by the survivors'........

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 04:23 PM
    Compare with his previous article

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/20/berger/pT8vfC7EUkHwDRsZo1tPhK/story.html

    This neocon is really unrepentant Trotskyite hell bent on world neoliberal revolution and the USA world hegemony. Nothing will change such people.

    In a sense they are real "occupiers" of the USA, the sect that keep the country, and especially its foreign policy, hostage.

    Here is one interesting comment from
    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/11/for-islamic-state-war-hints-look-to-the-bolsheviks/

    == quote ==

    The rise of ISIS was the direct consequence of the neocon-controlled US government's attempts at "regime change" in the Middle East. The CIA and other US government stooges helped provide arms, training, and funding to rebels in Libya and Syria in the hope that fueling those civil conflicts would destabilize the region.

    This represents a continuation of the plan outlined by the neocon think tank known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It was the PNAC that plotted to deceive the US into invading Iraq for the benefit of Israel. (Do some Googling and reading if none of this sounds familiar.)

    The situation with ISIS parallels the rise of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as a result of covert CIA support for the Islamic mujahideen in their fight against the Soviet occupiers. Most Americans are too ignorant to know that Osama Bin Laden and his comrades were once US allies (just as Saddam Hussein was a US ally until he ceased to be a cooperative puppet). Here's a quote from Reagan himself:

    "To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom."
    - U.S. President Ronald Reagan, March 21, 1983

    Naturally, those freedom fighters magically turned into "terrorists" and "cowards" once they started using those simple hand-held weapons to fight the massive US military that was invading their land, just as the Soviets had done in years past.

    The US government has been making a mess of the world for decades with its overt and covert wars of aggression. Maybe we should insist that "our" government quit dancing to the tune of the special interests who profit from endless war and conflict (the "defense" industry, the Israel lobby, etc.) and try minding our own business in the world for a change?

    Posted by Heretic50 | Report as abusive

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 10:25 AM
    Mc Cain and Portman are of the hillary/nuland/kagan neocon branch of the GOP. Why Jeb! was dumped. Mc Cain just came out for a nearly 50% increase in weapons buying funds!

    US intelligence officials before the inauguration pandered to Obama about hacking!

    Why I do not touch nyt, more yellow than wsj!

    [Jan 28, 2017] Obama Bequeaths A More Dangerous World

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the real world of modern Washington, Obama's choice of hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and Republican apparatchik Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense – along with keeping Bush's high command, including neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus – guaranteed that he would achieve little real foreign policy change. ..."
    "... Indeed, in 2009, this triumvirate collaborated to lock Obama into a futile counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan that did little more than get another 1,000 or so U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans. In his memoir Duty , Gates said he and Clinton could push their joint views – favoring more militaristic strategies – in the face of White House opposition because "we were both seen as 'un-fireable.'" ..."
    "... So, Obama's rookie management mistake of surrounding himself with seasoned Washington operatives with a hawkish agenda doomed his early presidency to maneuvering at the edges of change rather than engineering a major – and necessary – overhaul of how the United States deals with the world. ..."
    "... Thus, Obama was frequently outmaneuvered. Besides the ill-fated counterinsurgency surge in Afghanistan, there was his attempt in 2009-10 to get Brazil and Turkey to broker a deal with Iran in which it would surrender much of its enriched uranium. But Israel and the neocons wanted a "regime change" bombing strategy against Iran, leading Secretary Clinton to personally torpedo the Brazil-Turkey initiative (with the strong support of The New York Times' editorial page ) as Obama silently acquiesced to her insubordination. ..."
    "... Even after Clinton, Gates and Petraeus were gone by the start of Obama's second term, he continued to acquiesce to most of the demands of the neocons and liberal interventionists. Rather than act as a decisive U.S. president, Obama often behaved more like the sullen teen-ager complaining from the backseat about not wanting to go on a family trip. Obama grumbled about some of the neocon/liberal-hawk policies but he mostly went along, albeit half-heartedly at times. ..."
    Jan 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Robert Parry via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Any fair judgment about Barack Obama's presidency must start with the recognition that he inherited a dismal situation from George W. Bush : the U.S. economy was in free-fall and U.S. troops were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, these intertwined economic and foreign policy crises colored how Obama viewed his options, realizing that one false step could tip the world into the abyss.

    It's also true that his Republican rivals behaved as if they had no responsibility for the messes that Obama had to clean up. From the start, they set out to trip him up rather than lend a hand. Plus, the mainstream media blamed Obama for this failure of bipartisanship, rewarding the Republicans for their nihilistic obstructionism.

    That said, however, it is also true that Obama – an inexperienced manager – made huge mistakes from the outset and failed to rectify them in a timely fashion. For instance, he bought into the romantic notion of a "Team of Rivals" with his White House trumpeting the comparisons to Abraham Lincoln (although some of Lincoln's inclusion of rivals actually resulted from deals made at the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago to gain Lincoln the nomination).

    In the real world of modern Washington, Obama's choice of hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and Republican apparatchik Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense – along with keeping Bush's high command, including neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus – guaranteed that he would achieve little real foreign policy change.

    Indeed, in 2009, this triumvirate collaborated to lock Obama into a futile counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan that did little more than get another 1,000 or so U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans. In his memoir Duty , Gates said he and Clinton could push their joint views – favoring more militaristic strategies – in the face of White House opposition because "we were both seen as 'un-fireable.'"

    Seasoned Operatives

    So, Obama's rookie management mistake of surrounding himself with seasoned Washington operatives with a hawkish agenda doomed his early presidency to maneuvering at the edges of change rather than engineering a major – and necessary – overhaul of how the United States deals with the world.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on May 1, 2011, watching developments in the Special Forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Neither played a particularly prominent role in the operation. (White House photo by Pete Souza)

    Obama may have thought he could persuade these experienced players with his intellect and charm but that is not how power works. At moments when Obama was inclined to move in a less warlike direction, Clinton, Gates and Petraeus could easily leak damaging comments about his "weakness" to friendly journalists at mainstream publications. Obama found himself consistently under pressure and he lacked the backbone to prove Gates wrong by firing Gates and Clinton.

    Thus, Obama was frequently outmaneuvered. Besides the ill-fated counterinsurgency surge in Afghanistan, there was his attempt in 2009-10 to get Brazil and Turkey to broker a deal with Iran in which it would surrender much of its enriched uranium. But Israel and the neocons wanted a "regime change" bombing strategy against Iran, leading Secretary Clinton to personally torpedo the Brazil-Turkey initiative (with the strong support of The New York Times' editorial page ) as Obama silently acquiesced to her insubordination.

    In 2011, Obama also gave in to pressure from Clinton and one of his key advisers, "humanitarian" warmonger Samantha Power, to support another "regime change" in Libya. That U.S.-facilitated air war devastated the Libyan military and ended with Islamic militants sodomizing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi with a knife and then murdering him, a grisly outcome that Clinton celebrated with a chirpy rephrase of Julius Caesar's famous boast about a conquest, as she said: "We came, we saw, he died."

    Clinton was less upbeat a year later when Islamic militants in Benghazi, Libya, killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel, launching a scandal that led to the exposure of her private email server and reverberated through to the final days of her failed presidential campaign in 2016.

    Second-Term Indecision

    Even after Clinton, Gates and Petraeus were gone by the start of Obama's second term, he continued to acquiesce to most of the demands of the neocons and liberal interventionists. Rather than act as a decisive U.S. president, Obama often behaved more like the sullen teen-ager complaining from the backseat about not wanting to go on a family trip. Obama grumbled about some of the neocon/liberal-hawk policies but he mostly went along, albeit half-heartedly at times.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House on Nov. 9, 2015. (Photo credit: Raphael Ahren/Times of Israel)

    For instance, although he recognized that the idea of "moderate" Syrian rebels being successful in ousting President Bashar al-Assad was a "fantasy," he nevertheless approved covert shipments of weapons, which often ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda-linked terrorists and their allies. But he balked at a full-scale U.S. military intervention.

    Obama's mixed-signal Syrian strategy not only violated international law – by committing aggression against a sovereign state – but also contributed to the horrific bloodshed that ripped apart Syria and created a massive flow of refugees into Turkey and Europe. By the end of his presidency, the United States found itself largely sidelined as Russia and regional powers, Turkey and Iran, took the lead in trying to resolve the conflict.

    But one of the apparent reasons for Obama's susceptibility to such fruitless undertakings was that he seemed terrified of Israel and its pugnacious Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who made clear his disdain for Obama by essentially endorsing Obama's 2012 Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

    Although Obama may have bristled at Netanyahu's arrogance – displayed even during meetings in the Oval Office – the President always sought to mollify the tempestuous Prime Minister. At the peak of Obama's power – after he vanquished Romney despite Netanyahu's electoral interference – Obama chose to grovel before Netanyahu with an obsequious three-day visit to Israel .

    Despite that trip, Netanyahu treated Obama with disdain, setting a new standard for chutzpah by accepting a Republican invitation to appear before a joint session of Congress in 2015 and urge U.S. senators and representatives to side with Israel against their own president over Obama's negotiated agreement to constrain Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu and the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

    However, the Iran nuclear deal, which Netanyahu failed to derail, may have been Obama's most significant diplomatic achievement. (In his passive-aggressive way, Obama gave Netanyahu some measure of payback by abstaining on a December 2016 motion before the United Nations Security Council condemning Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands. Obama neither vetoed it nor voted for it, but let it pass.)

    Obama also defied Washington's hardliners when he moved to normalize relations with Cuba, although – by 2016 – the passionate feelings about the Caribbean island had faded as a geopolitical issue, making the Cuban sanctions more a relic of the old Cold War than a hot-button issue.

    Obama's Dubious Legacy

    Yet, Obama's fear of standing up consistently to Official Washington's neocons and cowering before the Israeli-Saudi tandem in the Middle East did much to define his foreign policy legacy. While Obama did drag his heels on some of their more extreme demands by resisting their calls to bomb the Syrian government in 2013 and by choosing diplomacy over war with Iran in 2014, Obama repeatedly circled back to ingratiating himself to the neocons and America's demanding Israeli-Saudi "allies."

    King Salman greets the President and First Lady during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    Instead of getting tough with Israel over its continued abuse of the Palestinians, Obama gave Netanyahu's regime the most sophisticated weapons from the U.S. arsenal. Instead of calling out the Saudis as the principal state sponsor of terrorism – for their support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State – Obama continued the fiction that Iran was the lead villain on terrorism and cooperated when the Saudis launched a brutal air war against their impoverished neighbors in Yemen .

    Obama personally acknowledged authorizing military strikes in seven countries, mostly through his aggressive use of drones , an approach toward push-button warfare that has spread animosity against the United States to the seven corners of the earth.

    However, perhaps Obama's most dangerous legacy is the New Cold War with Russia, which began in earnest when Washington's neocons struck back against Moscow for its cooperation with Obama in getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons (which short-circuited neocon hopes to bomb the Syrian military) and in persuading Iran to accept tight limits on its nuclear program (another obstacle to a neocon bombing plan).

    In both cases, the neocons were bent on "regime change," or at least a destructive bombing operation in line with Israeli and Saudi hostility toward Syria and Iran. But the biggest challenge to these schemes was the positive relationship that had developed between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. So, that relationship had to be shattered and the wedge that the neocons found handy was Ukraine.

    By September 2013, Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, had identified Ukraine as "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward the ultimate goal of ousting Putin. By late fall 2013 and winter 2014, neocons inside the U.S. government, including Sen. John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, were actively agitating for a "regime change" in Ukraine, a putsch against elected President Viktor Yanukovych that was carried out on Feb. 22, 2014.

    This operation on Russia's border provoked an immediate reaction from the Kremlin, which then supported ethnic-Russian Ukrainians who had voted heavily for Yanukovych and who objected to the coup regime in Kiev. The neocon-dominated U.S. mainstream media, of course, portrayed the Ukrainian conflict as a simple case of "Russian aggression," and Obama fell in line with this propaganda narrative.

    After his relationship with Putin had deteriorated over the ensuring two-plus years, Obama chose to escalate the New Cold War in his final weeks in office by having U.S. intelligence agencies leak unsubstantiated claims that Putin interfered in the U.S. presidential election by hacking and publicizing Democratic emails that helped Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

    Smearing Trump

    The CIA also put in play salacious rumors about the Kremlin blackmailing Trump over a supposed video of him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. And, according to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. counterintelligence agents investigated communications between retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's national security advisor, and Russian officials. In the New McCarthyism that now surrounds the New Cold War, any conversation with Russians apparently puts an American under suspicion for treason.

    President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    The anti-Russian frenzy also pulled in The New York Times , The Washington Post and virtually the entire mainstream media, which now treat any dissent from the official U.S. narratives condemning Moscow as prima facie evidence that you are part of a Russian propaganda apparatus. Even some "progressive" publications have joined this stampede because they so despise Trump that they will tout any accusation to damage his presidency.

    Besides raising serious concerns about civil liberties and freedom of association, Obama's end-of-term anti-Russian hysteria may be leading the Democratic Party into supplanting the Republicans as America's leading pro-war party allied with neocons, liberal hawks, the CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex – in opposition to President Trump's less belligerent approach toward Russia.

    This "trading places" moment over which party is the bigger warmonger could be another profound part of Obama's legacy, presenting a crisis for pro-peace Democrats as the Trump presidency unfolds.

    The Real Obama

    Yet, one of the mysteries of Obama is whether he was always a closet hawk who just let his true colors show over the course of his eight years in office or whether he was a weak executive who desperately wanted to belong to the Washington establishment and underwent a gradual submission to achieve that acceptance.

    I know some Obama watchers favor the first answer, that he simply bamboozled people into thinking that he was an agent for foreign policy change when he was always a stealth warmonger. But I tend to take the second position. To me, Obama was a person who – despite his intelligence, eloquence and accomplishments – was never accepted by America's predominantly white establishment.

    Because he was a black male raised in a white family and in a white-dominated society, Obama understood that he never really belonged. But Obama desperately wanted to be part of that power structure of well-dressed, well-schooled and well-connected elites who moved with such confidence within the economic-political system.

    An instructive moment came in 2014 when Obama was under sustained criticism for his refusal to bomb the Syrian military after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus that was initially blamed on the government though later evidence suggested that it was a provocation committed by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate.

    Despite the uncertainty about who was responsible, the neocons and liberal hawks deemed Obama "weak" for not ordering the bombing strike to enforce his "red line" against chemical weapons use.

    In a 2016 article in The Atlantic, Obama cited his sarin decision as a moment when he resisted the Washington "playbook" that usually favors a military response. The article also reported that Obama had been informed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there was no "slam dunk" evidence pinning the attack on the Syrian military. Yet, still Obama came under intense pressure to strike.

    A leader of this pressure campaign was neocon ideologue Robert Kagan, an architect of the Iraq War and the husband of Assistant Secretary of State Nuland. Kagan penned a long essay in The New Republic entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ." A subsequent New York Times article observed that Kagan "depicted President Obama as presiding over an inward turn by the United States that threatened the global order and broke with more than 70 years of American presidents and precedence."

    Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl )

    Kagan "called for Mr. Obama to resist a popular pull toward making the United States a nation without larger responsibilities, and to reassume the more muscular approach to the world out of vogue in Washington since the war in Iraq drained the country of its appetite for intervention," the Times article read.

    Obama was so sensitive to this criticism that he modified his speech to the West Point graduation and "even invited Mr. Kagan to lunch to compare world views," the Times reported. A source familiar with that conversation described it to me as a "meeting of equals."

    So, Obama's subservience to the neocons and liberal hawks may have begun as a case of an inexperienced president getting outmaneuvered by rivals whom he had foolishly empowered. But Obama's descent into a full-scale New Cold Warrior by the end of his second term suggests that he was no longer an overpowered naďf but someone who had become a committed convert.

    How Obama reached that point may be less significant than the fact that he did. Thus, the world that President Obama bequeaths to President Trump may not have all the same dangers that Bush left to Obama but the post-Obama world has hazards that Obama did more to create than to resolve - and some of the new risks may be even scarier.

    [Jan 27, 2017] How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War by Michael Lind

    Jan 27, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

    America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.

    Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European civilizations are evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert Kagan, the neoconservative propagandist, that Americans are martial and Europeans pacifist, is complete nonsense. A majority of Americans voted for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in 2000. Were it not for the overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing states in both the presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White House and the Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and values, on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of western Europeans.

    Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory are reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign policy is the result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly world. The truth is more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and unforeseeable contingencies – such as the selection rather than election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 – the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique that is unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream foreign policy establishment.

    The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.) Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these "experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the civilian defense secretary's office, where these Republican political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.

    Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

    The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.

    The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

    The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.

    Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

    The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots – odd as it seems – in the British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) – acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.

    Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times – owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon – which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!" style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.

    The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favorite). During Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically being studied.

    How did the neocon defense intellectuals – a small group at odds with most of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic – manage to capture the Bush administration? Few supported Bush during the presidential primaries. They feared that the second Bush would be like the first – a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process – and that his administration, again like his father's, would be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.

    Then they had a stroke of luck – Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.

    The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern culture.

    The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad's footsteps. There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the U.N.

    It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims that the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor target Israel rather than the U.S. The neocons urge war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the U.S., a far greater problem.

    So that is the bizarre story of how neoconservatives took over Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S. and opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel. The frightening thing is the role of happenstance and personality. After the al-Qaida attacks, any U.S. president would likely have gone to war to topple bin Laden's Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. But everything that the U.S. has done since then would have been different had America's 18 th century electoral rules not given Bush the presidency and had Cheney not used the transition period to turn the foreign policy executive into a PNAC reunion.

    For a British equivalent, one would have to imagine a Tory government, with Downing Street and Whitehall controlled by followers of the Rev. Ian Paisley, extreme Euroskeptics, empire loyalists and Blimpish military types – all determined, for a variety of strategic or religious reasons, to invade Egypt. Their aim would be to regain the Suez Canal as the first step in a campaign to restore the British empire. Yes, it really is that weird.

    [Jan 23, 2017] Karl Roves Prophecy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ..."
    "... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... Rush To Judgment ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.unz.com
    by Karel van Wolferen Karl Rove. Credit: Jay Godwin/Wikimedia Commons [We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece by Karel van Wolferen , who has spent decades as one of Holland's most distinguished international journalists.]

    In a famous exchange between a high official at the court of George W. Bush and journalist Ron Suskind, the official – later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove – takes the journalist to task for working in "the reality-based community." He defined that as believing "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Rove then asserted that this was no longer the way in which the world worked:

    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004).

    This declaration became popular as an illustration of the hubris of the Bush-Cheney government. But we could also see it as fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled in a manner that no journalist at that time would have deemed possible. Yes, the neoconservatives brought disrepute upon themselves because of the disaster in Iraq. Sure, opposition to the reality Rove had helped create in that devastated country became a first rung on the ladder that could lead to the presidency, as it did for Barack Obama. But the neocons stayed put in the State Department and other positions closely linked to the Obama White House, where they became allies with the liberal hawks in continuing 'spreading democracy' by overthrowing regimes. America's mainstream news and opinion purveyors, without demurring, accommodated the architects of reality production overseen by Dick Cheney.

    This did not end when Obama became president, but in fact with seemingly ever greater eagerness they gradually made the CIA/neocon-neoliberal created reality appear unshakably substantial in the minds of most newspaper readers and among TV audiences in the Atlantic basin. This was most obvious when attention moved to an imagined existential threat posed by Russia supposedly aimed at the political and 'Enlightenment' achievements of the West. Neoconservatives and liberal hawks bent America's foreign-policy entirely to their ultimate purpose of eliminating a Vladimir Putin who had decided not to dance to Washington's tune so that he might save the Russian state, which had been disintegrating under his predecessor and Wall Street's robber barons.

    With President Obama as a mere spectator, the neocon/liberals could – without being ridiculed – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d'état they fomented in the Ukraine. And because of an unquestioned Atlanticist faith, which holds that without the policies of the United States the world cannot be safe for people of the Atlantic basin, the European elites that determine policy or comment on it joined their American counterparts in endorsing that reality.

    As blind vassals the Europeans have adopted Washington's enemies as their own. Hence the ease with which the European Union member states could be roped into a system of baseless economic sanctions against Russia, much to the detriment of their own economic interests. Layers upon layers of anti-Russian propaganda have piled up to bamboozle a largely unsuspecting public on both sides of the Ocean.

    In the Netherlands, from where I have been watching all this, Putin was held personally responsible in much of the media for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner flying over the Ukraine, which killed 298 people. No serious investigation was undertaken. The presentation of 'almost definitive' findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow's challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.

    As the fighting in Syria reached a phase when contradictions in the official Washington/NATO story demanded a stepping back for a fresh look, editors were forced into contortions to make sure that the baddies stayed bad, and that no matter how cruel and murderously they went about their occupation in Aleppo and elsewhere, the jihadi groups fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government in Damascus remained strictly labeled as moderate dissidents worthy of Western support, and the Russians as violators of Western values. Architects of an official reality that diverges widely from the facts you thought you knew must rely on faits accompli they achieve through military or police violence and intimidation, in combination with a fitting interpretation or a news blackout delivered by mainstream media.

    These conditions have been widely obtained in the Atlantic basin through a gradual loss of political accountability at top levels, and through government agencies protected by venerated secrecy that are allowed to live lives of their own. As a result American and European populations have been dropped into a fantasy world, one under constant threat from terrorists and an evil dictator in Moscow. For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe. For Europeans, at least those in the northern half, the numerous NATO tanks rolling up to the border of the Russian Federation and the massing of troops in that area are an extra guarantee, on top of the missiles that were already there, that Vladimir Putin will restrain his urges to grab a European country or two. On a smaller scale, when every May 4th the 1940-45 war dead are remembered in the Netherlands, we must now include the fallen in Afghanistan as if they were a sacrifice to defend us against the Taliban threat from behind the Hindu Kush.

    Ever since the start of this millennium there has been a chain of realities as prophesied by Karl Rove, enhanced by terrorist attacks, which may or may not have been the work of actual terrorists, but whose reality is not questioned without risking one's reputation. The geopolitical picture that they have helped build in most minds appears fairly consistent if one can keep one's curiosity on a leash and one's sense of contradiction sufficiently blunt. After all, the details of the official reality are filled in and smoothed out all the time by crafty campaigns produced in the PR world, with assistance from think tanks and academia.

    But the question does reappear in one's thoughts: do the politically prominent and the well-positioned editors, especially those known for having once possessed skeptical minds, actually believe it all? Do those members of the cabinet or parliament, who can get hot under their collar as they decry the latest revelation about one or other outrage committed by Putin, take seriously what they're saying? Not all of them are believers, I know that from off the record conversations. But there appears to be a marked difference between the elite in government, in the media, in prominent social positions, and ordinary people who in these recent times of anguish about populism are sometimes referred to as uneducated. Quite a few among the latter appear to think that something fishy is going on. This could be because in my experience the alert ones have educated themselves, something that is not generally understood by commentators who have made their way through the bureaucracy of standard higher education.

    A disadvantage of being part of the elite is that you must stick to the accepted story. If you deviate from it, and have your thoughts run rather far away from it, which is quite inevitable once you begin with your deviation, you can no longer be trusted by those around you. If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

    Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying. Today greater loyalty to the reality created in Washington and Langley cannot be imagined. For much of northern Europe the official story that originates in the United States is amplified by the BBC and other once reliable purveyors of news and opinion like the Guardian , the Financial Times and the (always less reliable) Economist .

    Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications. Detailed analyses of developments understood through strings of false clues give the fictions ever more weight in learned heads and debates in parliament. At the time of writing, the grave concern spread across the opinion pages on my side of the Atlantic is about how Putin's meddling in upcoming European elections can be prevented.

    The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies. They have produced a multitude of editorials with facts upside-down. They force even those who advise against provoking Moscow to include a remark or two about Putin being a murderer or tyrant, lest they could be mistaken for traitors to Enlightenment values or even as Russian puppets, as I have been. Layers of unreality have incapacitated learned and serious people to think clearly about the world and how it came to be that way.

    How could Rove's predictions so totally materialize? There's a simple answer: 'they' got away with momentous lies at an early stage. The more authorities lie successfully the more they are likely to lie again in a big way to serve the purposes of earlier lies. The 'they' stands for those individuals and groups in the power system who operate beyond legal limits as a hydra-headed entity, whose coordination depends on the project, campaign, mission, or operation at hand. Those with much power got away with excessive extralegal use of it since the beginning of this century because systems of holding the powerful to account have crumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence, potential opposition to what the reality architects were doing dwindled to almost nothing. At the same time, people whose job or personal inclination leads them to ferret out truth were made to feel guilty for pursuing it.

    The best way, I think, to make sense of how this works is to study it as a type of intimidation. Sticking to the official story because you have to may not be quite as bad as forced religious conversion with a gun pointed at your head, but it belongs to the same category. It begins with the triggering of odd feelings of guilt. At least that is how I remember it. Living in Tokyo, I had just read Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment , the first major demolishing in book form of the Warren Report on the murder of John F. Kennedy, when I became aware that I had begun to belong to an undesirable category of people who were taking the existence of conspiracies seriously. We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who've recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.

    So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush. But it has only reached a heavy duty phase after the moment that I see as having triggered the triumph of political untruth.

    We have experienced massive systemic intimidation since 9/11. For the wider public we have the absurdities of airport security – initially evidenced by mountains of nail-clippers – reminding everyone of the arbitrary coercive potential that rests with the authorities. Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control! For journalists unexamined guilt feelings still play a major role. The serious ones feel guilty for wanting to ask disturbing questions, and so they reaffirm that they still belong to 'sane' humanity rather than the segment with extraterrestrials in flying saucers in its belief system. But there is a confused interaction with another guilty feeling of not having pursued unanswered questions. Its remedy appears to be a doubling down on the official story. Why throw in fairly common lines like "I have no time for truthers" unless you feel that this is where the shoe pinches?

    You will have noticed a fairly common response when the 9/11 massacre enters a discussion. Smart people will say that they "will not go there", which brings to mind the "here be dragons" warning on uncharted bits of medieval maps. That response is not stupid. It hints at an understanding that there is no way back once you enter that realm. There is simply no denying that if you accept the essential conclusions of the official 9/11 report you must also concede that laws of nature stopped working on that particular day. And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even academia is likely to come to an end.

    So, for the time being we are stuck with a considerable chunk of terra incognita relating to recognized political knowledge; which is an indispensable knowledge if you want to get current world affairs and the American role in it into proper perspective.

    Mapping the motives of those who decide "not to go there" may be a way to begin breaking through this disastrous deadlock. Holding onto your job is an honorable motivation when you have a family to maintain. The career motivation is not something to scorn. There is also an entirely reasonable expectation that once you go there you lose your voice publicly to address very important social abuse and political misdeeds. I think it is not difficult to detect authors active on internet samizdat sites who have that foremost in mind. Another possible reason for not going there is the more familiar one, akin to the denial that one has a dreadful disease. Also possible is an honorable position of wishing to preserve social order in the face of a prospect of very dramatic political upheaval caused by revelations about a crime so huge that hardly anything in America's history can be compared to it. Where could such a thing end – civil war? Martial law?

    What I find more difficult to stomach is the position of someone who is worshiped by what used to be the left, and who has been guiding that class of politically interested Americans as to where they can and cannot go. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. One can only hope that this overrated analyst of the establishment, who helps keep the most embarrassing questions out of the public sphere, trips over the contradictions and preposterousness of his own judgments and crumples in full view of his audience.

    The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation. Remember then that the intimidater does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you with the fact that you have no choice. That is the essence of the exercise of brute power. With false flag events the circumstantial evidence sometimes appears quite transparently false and, indeed could be interpreted as having been purposeful. Consider the finding of passports or identity papers accidentally left by terrorists, or their almost always having been known to and suspected by the police? What of their death through police shooting before they can be interrogated? Could these be taunting signals of ultimate power to a doubting public: Now you! Dare contradict us! Are the persons killed by the police the same who committed the crime? Follow-up questions once considered perfectly normal and necessary by news media editors are conspicuous by their absence.

    How can anyone quarrel with Rove's prophecy. He told Suskind that we will forever be studying newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very clear: you have no choice!

    A question that will be in the minds of perhaps many as they consider the newly sworn in president of the United States, who like John F. Kennedy appears to have understood that "Intelligence" leads a dangerously uncontrolled life of its own: At what point will he give in to the powers of an invisible government, as he is made to reckon that he also has no choice?

    Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch journalist and retired professor at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated into eleven languages and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad , one of Holland's leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over the years his articles have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The New Republic , The National Interest , Le Monde , and numerous other newspapers and magazines.

    [Jan 22, 2017] CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which drive the US foreign policy

    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    A Boy Named Sue : , January 21, 2017 at 12:50 AM
    >Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.

    FFS, grow up. I take back my positive comments about you.

    Do you think he asked for it?

    Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba.

    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 04:23 AM
    Yes, the day he became CinC he should have given the order: "mobilize the transports, evacuate the forces".

    That was too hard, it would have reduced the plunder his backers take. It was against his hidden neocon!

    Obama is responsible for as much evil, fraud, waste and murder as W and immensely more than Bill Clinton.

    The Old Testament warning: "Let them stand the judgement".

    libezkova -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 09:43 PM
    "Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba."

    You are trying to change the subject. While in relations with Iran and Cube Obama did achieve some progress, this not the whole story and this is not a major story. The major story is as following: in relations with Russia Obama was a very dangerous neocon warmonger, who actually put even more dangerous warmonger Hillary in charge of his foreign policy for a long four years period. And who has a track record in Ukraine and Syria which is the track record of a typical neocon.

    Both Russia and the USA nuclear forces are now on high alert, while you typing your staff. That means that if something happens (and the sophistication of modern computers chances are higher then before) leaders of the country have less then 20 min to prevent nuclear war. Less for Russia as the USA got way too close and literally encircled Russia. Do you see the problem ? This Nobel Peace Price winner does not give Russia enough time for measured response. Is not his a warmonger with a typical neoconservative ambitions?

    This is what recently Professor Steven Cohen told us. He think that this the current situation is close or even worse then the Cuban Nuclear Crisis.

    He also told a very interesting thing: it is wrong to consider CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which can be even in fight with each other and with Pentagon and FBI.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw

    And they are really ready to put the world on fire for their narrow goals (such as neocon goal of world dominance; or deposing Assad in Syria).

    [Jan 22, 2017] Trumps inaugural speech – promises, hopes and opportunities by the Saker

    Am nteresting thought (replace imperialism with neoliberalism) : "I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. "
    Revival of far right in Europe also is connected with the crisis of neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to. ..."
    "... I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. ..."
    "... I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. ..."
    "... Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe. ..."
    "... Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal ..."
    "... Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. ..."
    "... All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position to take action. The other good news is Trump's inauguration speech which included this historical promise " We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow ". Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary Clinton been elected.

    The other interesting feature of Trump's speech is that it centered heavily on people power and on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater. Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-billionaire capitalist be trusted when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that " imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism " and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to suddenly renounce imperialism.

    But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.

    For one thing, let's begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the AngloZionist Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which the USA find themselves today that brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people (Hillary's "deplorables") to "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy, "great again". This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to.

    I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

    Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like Putin too?

    There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.

    All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears.

    Then there are Trump's words about " forming new alliances " and uniting " the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth ". They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh, then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for " completely eradicating Radical Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth " for decades.

    There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a direct result from the "tepid war" the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon's messianic ideology. Now that a realist like Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.

    The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree upon is much, much longer than the number of issues were irreconcilable differences remain.

    So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is "for real", and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies. Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump , I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?". What is certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that this shall not be me.

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 21, 2017 at 10:15 am GMT \n

    100 Words

    Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon?

    Well, another author here, David Chibo, seems to think that the intent is exactly the opposite: for the US (the nation) to become World Hegemon. As opposed to what we have today, to multinational capital being World Hegemon

    Anonymous , January 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump

    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    alexander , January 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
    300 Words

    Yes Saker,

    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago .and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.

    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.

    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    bluedog , January 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @alexander Yes Saker,


    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.


    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.


    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    Guess you didn't watch the debate where Trump said there is a very large bubble over wall street, and its bigger than the housing bubble (my words not Trumps) and our GDP the figures the government puts out as David Stockman Reagan budget director said is very suspect to say the least, for I have seen it stated anywhere from $16 trillion to $18 trillion and change much like the BLS report I suspect.
    Not much wiggle room for Trump a crashing bubble on wall street almost 100,000,000 un-employed per the Lay-Off-List, no that fails to jibe with the figure the government puts out, much like the GDP I suspect, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the debt will grow under Trump as he re-builds the military, as more tax dollars are flushed down the drain to keep company with the trillions already there.
    Chalmers Johnson was right in his excellent books from Blowback to The Sorrows of Empire Militarism,Secrecy,and the End of the Republic and our 900+ bases around the globe, can Trump change that close at least half of those bases that cost us billions of dollars we don't have or will it be the status quo I suspect it will be the later

    Dan Hayes , January 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Anonymous
    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    Anonymous:

    I can back up Horowitz being termed "a rapid maniac". Some time ago I met him at one of his book signings. At that time I would be regarded as one of his disciples, i.e. his camp followers. That changed once I actually met him. His eyes were those of a crazed man. Enough said!

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 21, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT \n

    Fuck Horowitz, he certainly is a rabid maniac and a scumbag.

    As for the main topic, there's also this, the Masters of the Universe vs. the deep state:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/heres-how-the-trump-presidency-will-play-out/5570021

    Anon , January 22, 2017 at 2:29 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."

    But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
    And that's what it's all about.

    Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.

    Beckow , January 22, 2017 at 8:11 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    The problem is that the issues between Russia and US are not that easy to resolve. For example, will US keep the "anti-Iran" missile defense systems in East Europe? Will they continue to state that Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO? Will the recent NATO troops in Poland, Baltic states and Romania stay? There are a few others, like the Ukraine problem – Crimea, Donbass, economic collapse.

    None of those issues are suitable for a deal. A deal requires things that either side can let go. We don't have that here. Most likely the tensions will recede, some summits will be held, a few common policies will be attempted (e.g. Middle East), but none of the really big issues (missiles, NATO expansion, Crimea, Ukraine) will be addressed. US has gone too far down that road to backtrack now – it is all logistics at this point. And logistics don't change short of something like a war.

    So we are stuck. But at least we are no longer heading towards a catastrophe.

    Miro23 , January 22, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT \n
    200 Words @alexander Yes Saker,


    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.


    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.


    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    That's an interesting point, the US does have creditors and it has reached its credit limit, and hasn't exactly been making good investments with the money that was borrowed.

    The real issues seem to be making spending efficient (for example US healthcare that costs about 2x the Canadian rate per person for the same result), and rebasing production in the US (more US taxpayers).

    The Socialist UK government was in a similar position in the early 1970′s with a "welfare state" that it couldn't afford, general industrial strife and a "class war". When the UK's creditors saw that things weren't going to change they sold off government bonds and the country got the "Sterling Crisis" with Sterling losing what was left of its Reserve Currency status.

    At least Trump is indicating a political will for change, but he needs to act quickly.

    Realist , January 22, 2017 at 9:07 am GMT \n
    @Anonymous
    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    For one thing Horowitz is a goofy ass russophobe.

    Timur The Lame , January 22, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    I listened to Trump's speech live on headphones while power walking on a country road. Something about that scenario allowed me to give it a focus that I may not have had if I was watching it on the idiot box or reading a transcript.

    If I'm not mistaken, he literally called most of his esteemed guests ( ex-presidents especially) corrupt criminals, frauds and traitors. An unbelievable moment where the mob was reminded that politicians are not to be fawned over. They work for the people.

    The rest of the speech of course was lyrics for a remake of the song 'Dream the Impossible Dream'. But still, if the population wasn't attention deficit affected, that part of his speech could have been right up there with Ike's MIC moment.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website January 22, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT \n
    200 Words NEW!

    This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

    When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically zilch to do with imperialism?

    Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".

    David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike " renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country (the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of respect.

    Seamus Padraig , January 22, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    @Chet Roman "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy, "great again"

    While I am hopeful and will give Trump the chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, he like Obama before him, has appointed most the same plutocrats/neoliberal parasites in his administration that are part of what the Saker calls the "AngloZionist Empire". Will they, like the patrician FDR, promote policies against their own class interests? Time will tell but, after the same betrayal by "Hope and Change" Obama I would not bet on it.

    Not that I'm very sanguine about all the Goldman Sachs people in Trump's cabinet either, but if you're looking for reasons for optimism: At least Trump–unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama–hasn't appointed any retreads; i.e., people who've served in previous cabinets. That may indicate that some change is in the offing. Let's hope it's a change for the best.

    alexander , January 22, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT \n
    400 Words

    Annamaria,

    The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP ..Our GDP should ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not . it's bad news.

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T) it is such bad news our big media has refused to discuss it ..The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.

    The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it makes them accountable.

    The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.

    Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in the plus column.

    Do you want to know how ?

    He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there .and he has chosen to recognize this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry and the values that make us who we are ..

    He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of deception , so that it may never happen again.

    Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .

    Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and seizes all their assets .If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .

    then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars

    If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt .then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio is right back in the" plus column" .

    Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same ..the new ratio is 17.1 T Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.

    Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".

    Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good people who would never "lie us into war".

    This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care of business at home, and clean house when necessary.

    This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.

    Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?

    Skeptikal , January 22, 2017 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @Anon "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."

    But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
    And that's what it's all about.

    Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.

    "Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism."

    That seems to be true.
    I was shocked to read a letter in the current London Review of Books, actually a rebuttal to another letter, by Adam Tooze. Tooze had written a review of a book by Wolfgang Streeck. In his rebuttal Tooze attacked Streeck as an anti-Semite because Streeck had *dared* to write a book that presents arguments for the primacy of the nation-state as opposed to globalist forces. Tooze's argument basically came down to: nation-state = chauvinism = anti-Semitism, where globalization = "Semitism," I suppose, and Tooze actually more or less accused Streeck of anti-Semitism on this basis: that you cannot defend the idea of the nation-state without being in effectively anti-Semitic. He didn't show any other evidence but just this supposed syllogism, all of it theoretical. Interestingly Tooze was the one making the equation of globalism and Jews-not Streeck! But still, Streeck was the guilty one. Tooze spent a lot of breath on the word "Volk" for "people." Of coure, Streeck in German, and that is the German word for "people." Any other overtones "Volk" has acquired in English are the fault of the English, as English has its own second word, "folk," which German does not, and so English speakers didn't have to take over the German word and demonize it. They could have demonized their own word . . . Tooze's pedantry and intellectual sloppiness were quite startling. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal and maybe counterattack from Streeck in the next LRB . . .

    SmoothieX12 , Website January 22, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)

    These are bad news, but the news which are even worse is the fact that of these 18.7 Trillion of nominal GDP, probably third (most likely more) is a virtual GDP–the result of cooking of books and of financial and real estate machinations. Trump knows this, I am almost 99% positive, even 99.9%, on that.

    Skeptikal , January 22, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT \n
    @Anatoly Karlin

    This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes?... Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
    When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically zilch to do with imperialism?
    Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
    David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike " renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country (the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of respect.

    " one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. "

    True also of Kennedy and Khrushchev.

    Seraphim , January 23, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Diogenes

    "Make America Great Again"- is just an empty political slogan like bait on a fishing hook that only dumb fish would be attracted to.

    I suggest readers look at an article by Andrew Levine, a very insightful Jewish American political commentator and regular contributor to Counterpunch.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/20/when-was-america-great/

    "the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth".

    What has ISIS done to America or Trump that he should want to totally obliterate them? Before you denounce or pronounce me as dumb heretical dissenter, read on.

    Sunni Arabs in the Middle East have been exploited and controlled by racially arrogant European interlopers and colonists since the fall of the Ottomans. They have been especially mistreated and ravaged by vengeful Americans since 2001. They also facilitated a revival of Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict in Syria and Iraq. Now the displaced and persecuted Sunni minority want to form their own state, free from foreign interference to practice their chosen religion and way of life. I grant you that they are also vengeful and violent to those who persecuted them by using terrorist methods and that they practiced "ethnic cleansing" but that does not make them "uncivilized", the civilized Americans and Europeans did the same when conquering their settler colonies. So why not let them have their own land, just like the Jewish Europeans were given and make peace with time provided they renounce their goal of spreading Wahhabi Muslim empire by force?

    The Arab states which emerged after the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate were not meant to be replaced by an Arab Caliphate. The fight of the Sunnis is not the fight of a 'persecuted' minority, but of the former dominant minority for the re-establishment of their dominant position in the frame of the Caliphate, with wet dreams of world domination. ISIS is but the tip of the iceberg. Their eradication would cool down the overheated minds of the Caliphate dreamers.

    Cloak And Dagger , January 23, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT \n
    400 Words @alexander Annamaria,

    The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP.....Our GDP should ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not.... it's bad news.

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)...it is such bad news our big media has refused to discuss it .....The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.

    The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it makes them accountable.

    The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.


    Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in the plus column.

    Do you want to know how ?


    He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there....and he has chosen to recognize this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry and the values that make us who we are.....

    He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of deception , so that it may never happen again.

    Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .

    Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and seizes all their assets....If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .......

    then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars

    If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt....then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio is right back in the" plus column" ....

    Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same .....the new ratio is 17.1 T Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.

    Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".

    Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good people who would never "lie us into war".

    This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care of business at home, and clean house when necessary.

    This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.


    Would you do it ?.....If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?

    Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability

    Not to speak for Anna, but maybe I would – if blessed with balls of titanium, or perhaps by underestimating the capacity of the deep state to slice them off. Being human, one can only hope that Trump will do what I cannot, or could not in his shoes.

    One thing he cannot do is feign ignorance or pretend to be unaware of the critters festering in the swamp – after all, he campaigned on the promise of draining it. Where hope falters is in seeing the cabinet he is building with characters unlikely to do much in the swamp-draining department. Without a strong cadre of testicular fortitude surrounding him in his cabinet, his most sincere attempts at swamp-drainage will be quixotic at best.

    So, where does one place hope lest one becomes a blathering cynic or a nattering nabob of negativity?

    Ego -- That is where my chips are stacked. Nothing defines or motivates Trump more than his self-perception. I believe that it is much more than showmanship that propels his self-promotion, and nothing would be more devastating to the man than to be ridiculed or perceived as a failure. I doubt that Netanyahu could do to him what he did to Obama and survive the retaliatory deluge that would follow. I think Trump's hidden strength is his desire for vengeance against those that wrong him (I expect there to be tribulations in HRC's future). If the deep state doesn't do him in first, there is the strong possibility of damage on the deep state – one that they may never recover from in this world of instant information that wilts night-flowers.

    He may redefine victory on occasion for outcomes that are too difficult for him to accept, but in the end, he will "Make Trump Great Again," and if fortune favors us, help the US benefit in the process, if not the rest of the world.

    That does not rule out that his naiveté may cause him to stumble and fall, perhaps more than once, and he has not always succeeded in business, but it seems that he does build on his failures, and is unlikely to make the same mistake twice.

    Doesn't appear like a lot to cling to, but in this dystopic world, it is the best we have. Is it enough?

    [Jan 22, 2017] The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers. ..."
    "... Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire. ..."
    "... That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs :

    How (When?) Boston fought the empire
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/22/how-boston-fought-empire/mWNyIXXDIdogeh9guKDnzN/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Stephen Kinzer - January 22, 2017

    Where better to launch a patriotic uprising than Faneuil Hall in Boston? It is a lodestone of American liberty, a cathedral for freedom fighters. That is why a handful of eminent Bostonians chose it as the place to begin a new rebellion on the sunny afternoon of June 15, 1898.

    Like all Americans, they had been dizzied by the astonishing events of recent weeks. Their country had suddenly burst beyond its natural borders. American troops had landed in Cuba. American warships had bombarded Puerto Rico. An American expeditionary force was steaming toward the distant Philippine Islands. Hawaii seemed about to fall to American power. President William McKinley had called for 200,000 volunteers to fight in foreign wars. Fervor for the new idea of overseas expansion gripped the United States.

    This prospect thrilled some Americans. It horrified others. Their debate gripped the nation. The country's best-known political and intellectual leaders took sides. In the history of US foreign policy, this is truly the mother of all debates.

    When we argue over whether we should depose a government in Iraq or Syria or Libya, whether we should wage war in Afghanistan, whether we should encourage the bombing of Yemen, or whether we should seek to bend Russia to our will, we are arguing the same question that was at the center of this original debate. Every argument about foreign intervention that we make today - on both sides - was first made in the period around 1898. Today's debates are amazingly precise repetitions of that first one. The central question is the same: Should the United States project power into faraway lands? Yes, to guarantee our prosperity, save innocent lives, liberate the oppressed, and confront danger before it reaches our shores! No, intervention brings suffering and creates enemies!

    Boston was the epicenter of that original debate. Bostonians played such a large role in the national debate that one California newspaper called anti-imperialists "the kicking Bostonese." Several hundred of them turned out for the Faneuil Hall meeting. One speaker, the Rev. Charles Ames, a theologian and Unitarian pastor, warned that the moment the United States seized a foreign land, it would "sacrifice the principles on which the Republic was founded."

    The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations. ... Once we enter the field of international conflict as a great military and naval power, we shall be one more bully among bullies. We shall only add one more to the list of oppressors of mankind.

    At the end of that afternoon, one of the meeting's organizers came to the podium and read a resolution. "Resolved, that the mission of the United States is to help the world by an example of successful self-government, and that to abandon the principles and the policy under which we have prospered, and embrace the doctrine and practices now called imperial, is to enter the path which, with other great republics, has ended in the downfall of free institutions," it declared. "Resolved, that our first duty is to cure the evils in our own country." The resolution was adopted by acclamation.

    At the very moment these words were shaking Faneuil Hall, debate on the same question - overseas expansion - was reaching a climax in Congress. It is a marvelous coincidence: The first anti-imperialist rally in American history was held on the same day that Congress voted, also for the first time, on whether the United States should take an overseas colony. The colony in question was Hawaii, but all understood that the real question was immensely greater. It was nothing less than the future of the Republic: whether or not the United States should become a global military power and seek to shape the fate of faraway lands.

    On that day, as expected, the House of Representatives voted to annex Hawaii. Yet the great debate had only begun. Working from offices in Boston, anti-imperialists spent the summer and fall of 1898 writing letters to potential sympathizers across the country.

    Their work came to fruition on Nov. 18, when an eager crowd packed a law office on Milk Street to witness the founding of the Anti-Imperialist League. George Boutwell, who had been a passionate abolitionist as well as a congressman, US senator, and governor of Massachusetts, was chosen by acclimation as the league's first president. In his mind, every abolitionist was a natural anti-imperialist, since anyone who opposed keeping human beings as slaves must also oppose ruling other peoples against their will.

    At the end of 1898, American negotiators forced the defeated Spanish to sign the Treaty of Paris, in which they surrendered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. On Jan. 4, 1899, President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification. That set off a monthlong debate over what one senator called "the greatest question that has ever been presented to the American people." The dominant figure on each side was a brilliantly articulate Republican senator from Massachusetts.

    George Frisbie Hoar of Worcester led the anti-imperialist charge. The United States, he insisted, must not "rush madly upon this new career," lest it become "a cheap-jack country raking after the cart for the leavings of European tyranny." He ended his speech in a crescendo: "The poor Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman of Europe will exclaim, as he reads this new doctrine: 'Good God! Is there not one place left on earth where, in right of my manhood, I can stand up and be a man?' "

    Hoar's sharpest opponent was Henry Cabot Lodge of Beacon Hill and Nahant. Lodge told the Senate that since many foreign peoples were unequipped to govern themselves wisely, they should submit to American guidance and trust "the American people, who have never failed in any great duty or feared to face any responsibility, to deal with them in that spirit of justice, humanity, and liberty which has made us all that we are today or can ever hope to be."

    From their bustling office on Kilby Street, leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League fed information to friendly senators and heavily lobbied the handful who remained undecided. The league also published a stream of pamphlets, called Liberty Tracts, aimed at bringing its arguments to a larger audience. Often their titles were questions. "Which shall it be, nation or empire?" asked one. Another: "Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern themselves?"

    On Feb. 6, 1899, despite these intense efforts, senators ratified the Treaty of Paris - by just one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Armed rebellion broke out immediately in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of American troops were sent to suppress it. President McKinley faced a difficult task: explain to a divided nation why taking foreign lands was no betrayal of the American idea. He decided to deliver a speech in Boston, home of the Anti-Imperialist League and thus the heart of enemy territory. To assure himself a friendly audience, however, he chose as his platform the Home Market Club, one of the country's most potent agglomerations of corporate power.

    A crowd led by Mayor Josiah Quincy cheered as McKinley emerged from South Station around midday on Feb. 15, 1899. The next night, nearly two thousand guests packed Mechanics Hall for the largest banquet ever staged in the United States. In his speech, McKinley asserted that the essential goodness of the American people is the supreme and sole necessary justification of whatever the United States chooses to do in the world. This goodness, he acknowledged, might not be clear to the "misguided Filipino," but soon the islands would prosper under the rule "not of their American masters, but of their American emancipators."

    "Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity?" he asked. "We had it in every aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts."

    These words disgusted the philosopher William James. In an anguished letter to Boston newspapers, he called McKinley's speech a "shamefully evasive" attempt to obscure the central truth of the age: "We are cold-bloodedly, wantonly, and abominably destroying the soul of a people who never did us an atom of harm in their lives. It is bald, brutal piracy."

    Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers.

    "I vote with the army that wears the uniform and carries the flag of my country," he said. "When the enemy has yielded and the war is over, we can discuss other matters!"

    Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire.

    "Well, we are defeated for the time," admitted the Cambridge anti-imperialist Charles Eliot Norton. "But the war is not ended, and we are enlisted for the war."

    That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 22, 2017 at 07:23 AM
    Few want Manifest Destiny to stop short of an American world.
    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Splendid essay.

    [Jan 22, 2017] Weepy Globalist To Be Replaced By Rumbustious Working Class Hero At Noon Friday by John Derbyshire

    An interesting quote: "So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... the antecedent for "it" seems to be the danger to us from terrorism and foreign dictators–JD ..."
    "... Watch: 'You Have Made Me Proud' – President Obama's Farewell Speech Is a Powerful Road-Map for Upholding Democracy , ..."
    "... Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, ..."
    "... On the suggestion that Vladimir Putin helped Trump get elected: ..."
    "... On the allegations in the BuzzFeed file about stuff he had paid those honey-trap hookers to do in Moscow: ..."
    "... On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: ..."
    "... On Lindsey Graham proposing a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia: ..."
    "... That's the Trump we know and love. So was his reaction when a CNN reporter kept demanding to ask a question: "Don't be rude. No, I'm not going to give you a question You are fake news! " ..."
    "... One of the reasons low-income Americans admire rich people is that they are do-ers who seem to live gilded lives, and not on the backs of the poor. It's the professional classes they don't like-the lawyers and doctors and teachers, who invade their lives with bills and lectures. The people who look and sound like Hillary Clinton. Trump was showing that he, too, was under the cosh of the miserable lawyers-he even had one come to the podium. ..."
    "... Bad news, Trump haters: This bonkers show has made him even MORE popular, writes JUSTIN WEBB. He played to the gallery with something bordering on genius , ..."
    "... Watch your back, Mr. President-Elect. Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon . ..."
    "... BBC is still in nonstop 'take down Trump' mode, every other day the headline starts 'Donald Trump has provoked outrage' . ..."
    "... From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. ..."
    "... Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white. ..."
    "... All this talk of Russian hacking and Russian interference emanating from the Progs misses the point. I don't believe in most of it. But surely Russians did what they could to favor Trump. But what's wrong with that, at least from our perspective? ..."
    "... The fact is the US is not ruled by Americans but by the GLOB, or Globalist Tyranny. Though the GLOB is a diverse bunch of globalist-elites, the top dogs are Zionists, homos, and Anglo-Cuck-Collaborators. And these people have ZERO feeling for the historical white majority of the Americans. Anglo-Collaborators are too cucked out to have any white sentiments. They are like Joe Biden who will sell his ma down the river for his cookies and creams. These cucks are willing to turn all historically white nations into EU and US into non-white majority nations AS LONG AS they and their children are assure of privilege and power in the New Order. They are globo-quislings. ..."
    "... So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority. ..."
    "... Now, the Russian role in 2016 was nothing like French role in the War of Independence, but it may have tipped the balance. White Americans should rejoice and thank the Russians. ..."
    "... American Media are not American. It is mostly GLOB. And it means that as long as US is under Glob power, it is under alien tyranny. Indeed, even with Trump as president, the most powerful force in the US is Jewish-Glob power. ..."
    "... Trump's tweets are an act of genius. He has rocked the whole liberal establishment by stating his own opinions and speaking directly to those who have been ignored for years. ..."
    "... This is revolutionary, Trump could never have survived a Presidential run in the past, he would have been unable to fight back, no one would be able to hear him. ..."
    "... Who would have thought that a President could ignore and ridicule major media players in an age where careers are destroyed by the media because they disagree with gay marriage... ..."
    "... The Zionists, CIA and FBI could finish with Trump in no time at all, but the problem is that it's not just Trump, he's only riding a wave. Eliminate Trump and they could get something much worse, so they probably calculate that it's better to try to corrupt Trump ( he's a dealmaker) despite his connection to the thing that they fear the most i.e. Radical Anglo Nationalism. ..."
    "... Americans are generally aware of the founders of this country. However, immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered to be "garbage" by nativists at various points in time. Millions of immigrants who came to the States had little money, but a strong work ethic and the willingness to embrace our customs and our political traditions. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Credit: VDare.com

    This is the Week of the Two Presidents- Donald Trump succeeds Barack Obama at noon on Friday January 20. Both men recently addressed major gatherings: Barack Obama made his official farewell to the nation, Donald Trump held his first formal press conference since being elected. Each event was highly characteristic. My take: I for one am glad we have heard the last of Obama. And Trump's rumbustiousness is thrilling .

    Obama stepped out in front of a huge audience in Chicago and delivered a long, gassy speech-51 minutes and 10 seconds. That's 10 minutes longer than the Farewell Addresses of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan combined .

    Bush 41 did not technically give a farewell address, although his speech to West Point cadets, the last of his presidency, is sometimes cited as such. I don't know its duration, but the transcript runs to 3,300 words. The transcript of Obama's farewell address is just short of 5,000 words, so he left Poppy Bush in the dust, too. This is a guy who really likes the sound of his own voice.

    The gold standard in political speeches, so far as I'm concerned, was the one Calvin Coolidge delivered to the Massachusetts Senate 102 years ago, after being elected President of that body. It consisted of forty-four words, thus :

    Honorable Senators: My sincerest thanks I offer you. Conserve the firm foundations of our institutions. Do your work with the spirit of a soldier in the public service. Be loyal to the Commonwealth and to yourselves, and be brief; above all things, be brief.

    That makes the Gettysburg Address , at 272 words, look positively flabby. It makes Obama's farewell address look morbidly obese.

    What did Obama's speech actually contain? Well, there was lots of "hope" and "change": five "hopes" and sixteen "changes" by my count. I couldn't actually pin down anything declarative about "hope", but there was definitely a consistent theme on "change." Change is good! Don't be afraid of change! -

    Constant change has been America's hallmark; that it's not something to fear but something to embrace It [ the antecedent for "it" seems to be the danger to us from terrorism and foreign dictators–JD ] represents the fear of change; the fear of people who look or speak or pray differently

    If you fear change you are a bad person!

    I'm sorry, Mr. President, but that is inane. Some change is good, some isn't. Saying, "Change is good!" makes as much sense as saying, " Weather is good!" or "Vegetation is good!" If an asteroid were to strike the earth and wipe out the human race, that would be a major change, wouldn't it? Not many of us would consider it good, though.

    And just as change is not necessarily good, fear is not necessarily bad. We have the fear instinct for a very good reason: to preserve ourselves against dangers. We may argue about whether some one particular phenomenon is or is not dangerous, but fear itself is useful and valuable, not a failing or a weakness .

    Take for example that "fear of people who look or speak or pray differently." If people who look different from me in some one particular way have a homicide rate seven times that of people who look the same as me, and a robbery rate thirteen times, isn't fear of those people rational? If violent acts of terrorism against innocent civilians are almost exclusively committed by people who pray a certain way, is not fear of people who pray that way justified?

    And look at Obama's illogical assumptions:

    If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children-because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America's workforce.

    Note the patronizing conflation of "immigrants" with "brown kids." I'm an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant; neither of us is brown.

    Note also the meteorological approach to immigration. It's like the weather! Can't do anything about it! In fact immigration is just a policy, that we can change at will. We could, without any offense to the Constitution, stop all immigration and require all noncitizens to leave our territory.

    How would that be for "change"! To fear it would, of course, be weak and un-American.

    And then there are Obama's characteristic weaselly little half-truths:

    I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans who are just as patriotic as we are.

    I have no problem with the first half of that. I too reject discrimination against American citizens who are Muslims.

    At the same time, and without any inconsistency I can see, I think we have all the Muslims we need. Islam doesn't fit comfortably into non-Muslim nations. It creates problems that we'd be wise to avoid. Let's stop all further settlement of Muslims in the U.S.A.

    Again, I don't know of any constitutional reason why we can't do that.

    But the second half, Obama's assertion that Muslims are just as patriotic as we are, is open to question. It's true in the sense that some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, are patriotic, while others aren't. The proportions in each case bears examining. The non-patriotism of Muslim non-patriots is of a seriously different kind from the non-patriotism of Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, and Wiccan non-patriots.

    This slippery sleight of mouth is very Obamaesque. And personally, I could do without all the girlish emoting that Obama went in for towards the end of the speech. By the time he'd gotten through gushing over all the hope and change he'd generated, and over his wife and daughters, etc., there was, as several news outlets noted, not a dry eye in the house.[ Watch: 'You Have Made Me Proud' – President Obama's Farewell Speech Is a Powerful Road-Map for Upholding Democracy , Black Entertainment Television, January 11, 3017]

    From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. Then I recall that this is somewhat un-American of me, and feel a bit ashamed. My fellow Americans mostly like that kind of thing, and I ought to yield to their taste.

    I just can't, though. I'm from a nation and a time that admired reserve, fortitude, and the stiff upper lip. "I have lost my leg, by God!" Lord Uxbridge told the Duke of Wellington on the field of Waterloo, as cannonballs whizzed by. "By God, and have you!" replied the Duke.

    Those are my people. They're dead now, or old, even in the Mother Country. But they had something that's been lost, and the loss of which I regret very much.

    Trump's presser was comparable in wordage to Obama's speech.

    The questions and answers, not counting the nested presentation by Trump's lawyer, were seventy-four hundred words, of which by far the majority were Trump's. So chances are Trump spoke more words than Obama. And they were pure Trumplish: unfiltered, demotic, boastful, pugnacious in self-defense, hyperbolic in praise, brutal in scorn, sometimes contradictory, occasionally nonsensical.

    When he didn't want to answer a question he just blustered. Would Obamacare guarantee coverage for current beneficiaries? Trump:

      You're gonna be very, very proud of what we put forth having to do with health care We're going to be submitting, as soon as our secretary's approved, almost simultaneously, shortly thereafter, a plan. It'll be repeal and replace. It will be essentially, simultaneously. It will be various segments, you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably, the same day, could be the same hour. So we're gonna do repeal and replace, very complicated stuff. And we're gonna get a health bill passed, we're gonna get health care taken care of in this country The plan will be repeal and replace Obamacare. We're going to have a health care that is far less expensive and far better.

    Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, NYT, January 11, 2017

    The information content of that answer is, let's be frank, zero. You could in fact, in the spirit of Coolidge, you could make an economical translation of that 430-word answer from Trumplish into Coolidgean using just three words: "Wait and see."

    That's OK, though. Donald Trump is by no means the first President to answer a reporter's question with blustery evasion-by no means.

    It was Trump's style and demeanor at the presser that had us Trumpians clapping along with him. Those, and his one-liners. Four sample one-liners:

      On the suggestion that Vladimir Putin helped Trump get elected: "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability." On the allegations in the BuzzFeed file about stuff he had paid those honey-trap hookers to do in Moscow: "I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me." On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: "No, I don't think they care at all." On Lindsey Graham proposing a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia: "I hadn't heard Lindsey Graham was going to do that. Lindsey Graham. I've been competing with him for a long time. He is going to crack that one percent barrier one day."

    That's the Trump we know and love. So was his reaction when a CNN reporter kept demanding to ask a question: "Don't be rude. No, I'm not going to give you a question You are fake news! " Similarly with BuzzFeed, which Trump said is, quote, "a failing pile of garbage." Along the lines of the old joke about Harry Truman and the word "manure," I guess America should be glad he used the word "garbage."

    Of all the commentary on Trump's presser, I think the one that got to the heart of the matter was Justin Webb's in the Daily Mail , January 12th, pertaining to the point in the presser where Trump brought up his lawyer to explain about his business interests:

    One of the reasons low-income Americans admire rich people is that they are do-ers who seem to live gilded lives, and not on the backs of the poor. It's the professional classes they don't like-the lawyers and doctors and teachers, who invade their lives with bills and lectures. The people who look and sound like Hillary Clinton. Trump was showing that he, too, was under the cosh of the miserable lawyers-he even had one come to the podium.

    And he was demonstrating that, despite this, he had admirably emerged with his businesses intact. I am no psychology professor, but this seemed to me to be playing to the gallery-i.e. those "ordinary" Americans who are so fed up with the political class-with something bordering on genius.

    Bad news, Trump haters: This bonkers show has made him even MORE popular, writes JUSTIN WEBB. He played to the gallery with something bordering on genius , By Justin Webb, The Daily Mail, January 13, 2017

    Mail man Webb then goes on to warn that Trump might be too combative, too much the Alpha Male, for the suits in D.C. to put up with for long, so that they will find a way to force him out. Webb concludes:

    If they succeed, it would be a bitter blow to the millions of working-class Americans who voted for Trump, folk who felt he alone among politicians understood their aspirations, and who would have been thrilled by his extraordinary, rumbustious performance this week. It would again confirm their view that the political establishment looks after its own-while the "little people" are brushed aside.

    I don't think I count as working-class. My hands are rather soft , and I only wear boots for hiking or shoveling snow . I'll admit that I was thrilled by Trump's performance, though, just as much as Justin Webb's hypothetical working-class Americans.

    And yes, like Webb, I worry that Trump's don't-give-a-damn rumbustiousness may be too much for the seat-warmers and log-rollers of Washington, D.C.-among which category I would include our intelligence agencies -to the degree that they will find some way to unseat him. Watch your back, Mr. President-Elect. Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon .

    And in case you're wondering, listeners, "rumbustious" is indeed a word- I looked it up .

    John Derbyshire [ email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He's had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013 . His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com .

    (Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)

    jivilov , January 17, 2017 at 8:40 am GMT

    Another great article by El Derbo. BTW an alternate version of Wellington's reply to Uxbridge goes, "By Jove, so you have!" Whatever his merits the Duke was not strong on empathy. But if he was, w0uld he have been such a winning general?

    Anonymous Nephew , January 17, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

    Justin Webb was the BBCs US correspondent for years ( as was his father ) . He's also one of the presenters of the R4 Today programme.

    ( BBC is still in nonstop 'take down Trump' mode, every other day the headline starts 'Donald Trump has provoked outrage' . Today on R4 we had the Observer's literary editor in conversation about Trump with Malcolm Gladwell – I wonder if that was positive or negative?)

    polistra , January 17, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

    I'm somewhat less worried about Fort Marcy. Important difference between Trump and Nixon or Reagan: Trump has his own security forces, both physical and cyber. He doesn't have to rely on the Deepstate-owned Secret Service.

    He clearly understands how these things work, as demonstrated by his discussion of paper messages vs email. He's been 'controversial' for decades and he's been watching his back effectively for decades.

    TomSchmidt , January 17, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

    I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans who are just as patriotic as we are.

    Perhaps he accepts discrimination against Muslim Americans whose patriotism differs, or is less than, "us," whoever that is? It's a slimy, unctuous, political phrase.

    Randal , January 17, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

    Another good piece that ought to be gracing the pages of the Spectator and the Telegraph, if those publications were still traditionalist conservative and weren't firmly in the grip of pc censorship and neoconnery.

    From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. Then I recall that this is somewhat un-American of me, and feel a bit ashamed. My fellow Americans mostly like that kind of thing, and I ought to yield to their taste

    I agree entirely, and I don't have the burden of having to try to assimilate to a foreign country's culture, so I can say so without qualification. I don't like men who openly display sentimentality and don't respect them as leaders.

    Women are a different matter, but with a few unusual exceptions they don't make good leaders anyway.

    By the way, here's a matter that affects both your country of origin and your adopted one: how remarkable is it that supposedly serious people ("Theresa May's advisers") are reported as putting David Cameron forward as a candidate for Secretary General of NATO? The man who repeatedly displayed his complete unsuitability for any role in strategic decision making by not only pushing the disastrous destruction of Libya's government in 2011 but, only two years later and with the costs of that earlier blunder in full view, actually wanted to do the same to Syria! Worse, not only did he evidently want to do it, but he lacked the competence to manage a compliant Parliament into giving him the required rubber stamp!

    Of course, it's not all that remarkable if one ditches the naďve idea that those "advising May" are not either incompetent themselves or acting out of ulterior motives that are incompatible with any genuine British national interest.

    An optimist might suggest that perhaps clever subversion rather than stupidity is the explanation here. What better way to further undermine an institution that has long outlived its original purpose and has become a vehicle for troublemaking and disorder, yet has such deep institutional roots and serves such a useful role for nefarious US deep state purposes that it cannot be rooted out, than to put at its helm an individual so patently unsuited to such a role?

    But that is surely hopelessly optimistic. Most likely the obvious explanation is correct, that it is just another instance of the trademarked mix of incompetence and evil that seems to have been running US sphere foreign policy since the 1990s.

    Anonymous , January 17, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

    Weepy Globalist to be Replaced By Rumbustious Working Class Hero At Noon Friday Can D.C. Suits Stand It?

    One of the best headers ever. (Answer: yes, but barely. "It could be the end of think tanks as we know them", they have been heard soughing.)

    Bragadocious , January 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us "

    This is precisely the error made by progressives immersed in the scuzzy identity politics bathtub. I don't want to "invest" in the children of Irish illegal immigrants either. And they look a lot like me. Their parents are likely to be moronic leftists who arrived here with disdain and contempt for rule of law, no different than the parents of MS-13 gangbangers in Brentwood. Very basically, if you can't stand in line like everyone else, you're not worth investing in.

    WorkingClass , January 17, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT
    @polistra

    There will likely be gunplay at the Inaugural. At Maidan snipers shot people on both sides of the conflict. Maidan is the model for the coup against Trump. Either there will be an Erdogan style purge, or Trump will be impeached, imprisoned or martyred.

    Corvinus , January 17, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    "Secession is just around the corner it's a comming."

    That is a pipe dream. Now, Derby "This is a guy who really likes the sound of his own voice." Pot, meet kettle.

    "Note the patronizing conflation of "immigrants" with "brown kids." I'm an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant; neither of us is brown."

    Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white.

    "At the same time, and without any inconsistency I can see, I think we have all the Muslims we need."

    Why should an Englishman and a Chinese woman (race mixing, I thought that was a big no-no) be allowed to enter the United States? We already have too many of your kind already!

    "But the second half, Obama's assertion that Muslims are just as patriotic as we are, is open to question. It's true in the sense that some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, are patriotic, while others aren't. The proportions in each case bears examining.

    Indeed, the proportions in each case bears examining. How many American Muslims committed acts of terrorism on American soil prior to 911?

    "The non-patriotism of Muslim non-patriots is of a seriously different kind from the non-patriotism of Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, and Wiccan non-patriots."

    This is gooblygook. Either a person is loyal or disloyal. Now, using Derbs logic, the non-patriotism of Jew non-patriots is also noteworthy for being a "different kind". Because Jews cause all kinds of havoc, right?

    "Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon."

    Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate. Certainly, Woodward and Bernstein and others employed questionable means during their investigation, but the LARGER issue was to expose the lies of an administration. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden merely copied the strategies of these two reporters, yet somehow they are lionized for their uncovering despite their covert means to obtain information?

    rienzi , January 17, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT

    Strangely enough, Trump has already done more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans by saving some jobs in Indianapolis, before he even takes office, than the last three presidents have accomplished in 24 years in office.

    Forbes , January 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT

    The disgrace (conundrum?), as it were, is that plenty of 30- and 40- and 50-something Americans find Obama's shtick appealing, whether the self-referential I, me, my, or the weepiness–it's not just dopey Millennials without the experience of time. They've all been inculcated with the idea that it's the feelz that matters.

    Anon , January 17, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

    All this talk of Russian hacking and Russian interference emanating from the Progs misses the point. I don't believe in most of it. But surely Russians did what they could to favor Trump. But what's wrong with that, at least from our perspective?

    After all, didn't the French welcome the American role in driving out German Occupation during WWII? Didn't Philippines welcome the Americans in driving out the Japanese?

    The fact is the US is not ruled by Americans but by the GLOB, or Globalist Tyranny. Though the GLOB is a diverse bunch of globalist-elites, the top dogs are Zionists, homos, and Anglo-Cuck-Collaborators. And these people have ZERO feeling for the historical white majority of the Americans. Anglo-Collaborators are too cucked out to have any white sentiments. They are like Joe Biden who will sell his ma down the river for his cookies and creams. These cucks are willing to turn all historically white nations into EU and US into non-white majority nations AS LONG AS they and their children are assure of privilege and power in the New Order. They are globo-quislings.

    So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority.

    Any people who are under alien tyranny should welcome other alien forces to counter-balance the alien force currently in power.
    It's like the American Revolution wouldn't have been possible without the crucial help of the French. The British were too powerful, and most of the major battles won by the Americans were actually fought by the French.

    Now, the Russian role in 2016 was nothing like French role in the War of Independence, but it may have tipped the balance. White Americans should rejoice and thank the Russians.

    After all, there are parallels. In the 90s, the globalists took over Russia and totally looted and plundered that country.

    It was nationalism that restored Russian sovereignty somewhat(though it still has long way to go).

    So, white Americans need to look to Russia and Russian-Americans. Indeed, just as Jewish-Americans feel closer to Russian-Jews and French Jews than to white gentile Americans(whom most Jews despise), white gentile Americans should feel closer to white gentiles all over the world than with Jews or other elements of the GLOB. White Americans and white Russians should regard one another as brothers. After all, white Russians don't want to destroy White America. It is the Jewish globalists who have that agenda.

    Pan-Zionism and Pan-Jewish-ism govern Jewish mindset and power. Jewish Americans feel closer to Israeli-Jews, Hungarian Jews, French Jews, and British Jews than with gentile Americans.

    So, white gentiles need a pan-white-ism. If Jewish-Americans and Russian Jews work together to plunder both Russian gentiles and American gentiles, then gentiles in both nations should work together to defend themselves from avaricious globalist Jewish power. Why should only Jews have the right to create tribal networks all over the world?

    I say white gentiles also need to create pan-white or pan-European networks all over. They need to bury the hatchet because they face similar threats in both US and EU.

    If someone is holding you hostage, and another person saves you from your captor, should you blame the other person for having saved you? No, of course not. You should thank him.

    So, if Russia played a role in helping white Americans liberate themselves from the tyranny of the Glob, white Americans should be grateful.

    Jewish GLOB would like us to believe that their power & control is 'American as bagel and cream cheese and lox', but their power is alien and anti-American. After all, globalism is a neo-imperialist war directed at ALL nations. So, if alien Russian influence was crucial in 2016, it was in helping knock out the alien Jewish influence. While there are good decent patriotic Jewish Americans, most of Jewish Power in the US is not patriotic or nationalist but GLOBO-IMPERIALIST and committed to destroying the national sovereignty of all white nations. Consider what Jews tried to do to Hungary and Poland.

    They tried to force those nations to surrender to non-stop Muslim and African invasions caused by wars fomented by Neocons and their cuck-whores.

    Besides, even now, Russian influence in the US is minuscule compared to the power of the GLOB. Glob elites are just a tiny percentage of US population, but they control 90% of media, Wall Street, Hollywood, academia, and much else. The fact that such a small minority controls so much of American Power should be the real scandal.

    American Media are not American. It is mostly GLOB. And it means that as long as US is under Glob power, it is under alien tyranny. Indeed, even with Trump as president, the most powerful force in the US is Jewish-Glob power.

    So, gentile Americans should welcome ANY foreign/alien help to weaken the power of the alien GLOB that controls most of the institutions in America. Look how the whores of Congress pledge their main loyalty to Israel, Israel, and Israel.

    Agree: Autochthon
    Svigor , January 18, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

    And in case you're wondering, listeners, "rumbustious" is indeed a word-I looked it up.

    Ha! Now you know how it feels!

    Skeptikal , January 18, 2017 at 3:46 am GMT

    @Corvinus

    "Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate. "

    Don't be silly. Read Family of Secrets, by Russ Baker, for the real story. The relevant chapters are available online at WhoWhatWhy.

    Authenticjazzman , January 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

    @Binyamin

    " His cabinet appointees are almost exclusively wealthy ( actually extremely wealthy) white men"

    So it would have made you feel better if he had appointed a cabinet made up exclusively of poor people of color, right.
    I am thinking that you are German because your viewpoints are identical with the german leftist " Gutmensch" SJW worldview, and you simply do not comprehend that average Americans are not jealous or spiteful of "Wealthy" folks, on the contrary, they respect them and congratulate them for their status.
    You guys have no problem with wealthy "Old white men" as long as they are leftists, such as BC or B Sanders or WB, or BG.
    Myself I am an "Old white man" and I am not ashamed to be an "Old white man", so put that in your "Gutmensch" pipe and smoke it.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    El Dato , January 18, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT
    • 100 Words

    I do think the "the fear of change" is a healthy element to have in a world that looks like "The Shockwave Rider" come true.

    Master Soda , "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to statism. Statism leads to blank checks for politicians. Blank checks for politicians leads to welfare/warfare and micromanagement and control freakshows sold as progressivism."

    Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 1:10 am GMT
    • 300 Words

    Mr. Derbyshire writes that "Saying, "Change is good!" makes as much sense as saying, "Weather is good!" or "Vegetation is good!"

    I have made the same point, but about different, more contentious words, for decades.
    Two of the words I said were silly to regard as good or bad were " intolerance" and "discrimination", words that for at least 30 years have, in the minds of many politicians, educators, executives and the brainwashed, morphed into synonyms for "bad!", which is a truly dumb and gutless surrender of language, it's and meaning and power of independent thought.

    A society, any society, anywhere on earth, falls by what it chooses wisely to discriminate against and what it refuses to tolerate. Sometimes these choices are contentious and harder to justify against the slogans and sound-bites that we have been relentlessly force-fed for a half century.

    Just mooting, that discrimination or intolerance are, of themselves, not necessarily bad, prompts the Pavlovian reflex of sharp intakes of breath and dutiful frowns from many listeners. Dare moot that "racism", sexism or homophobia (a ridiculous word etymologically) of any of the other proscribed -isms and –obiahs are, in their milder degrees, sensible social phenomena, and vitriol flows from the mouths of PC believers as reason departs as readily as it does from believers of the ROP when their cult is challenged logically. One is labelled as irredeemably evil despite, and I repeat, ANY society, anywhere on earth, falls by what it chooses to discriminate against and what it refuses to tolerate just as much as it rises by what it encourages.

    What we choose to encourage or discriminate against is far too important to be treated as dogma.

    The rules that govern society should be open to rigorous debate and examination, not, as is the case here in the UK and most of Europe, "defended" by a cowed and complicit Fourth Estate, and enforces by imprisonment for so-called "hate speech."

    Good luck America, I hope that Trump grows into the job and proves a much better President than the tactically-weepy O'Bummer.

    Agree: dfordoom
    Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
    @El Dato

    Never heard of "The Shockwave Rider" but it's true about how fear can be manipulated, although it's not just Lefty pols who exploit it.
    According to their creed, pols ramp up fears or damp down reasonable and prudent ones, according to their agenda.

    Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

    @Anon

    That is indeed a well-informed comment, unsurprisingly made under anonimity. If I published the same comment under my own name here in the UK, it would be off to the gulag for me, as we do not have the admirable First Amendment of The US contitution.

    If you published this under your own name in America, it would "only" be punishable by a media hounding, career death and the sort of public vilification seen during The Cultural Revolution.

    Carlton Meyer , Website January 19, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

    Obama, the master liar. Today, he stated:

    "And it is important for the United States to stand up for the basic principal that big countries don't go around and invade and bully smaller countries."

    That was so bizarre I had to laugh, but noted the corporate press softball pitchers at this "news" conference didn't even smile at that absurd statement. No need for a "fact check" news story. Hell, the USA don't just bully and invade, it destroys and lays waste to entire nations on a yearly basis. Obama had dozens of foreigners murdered via drones and snipers each week, but perhaps that's not considered a bully tactic.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/obama-final-press-conference.html?_r=0

    Agree: Mark Green , dfordoom
    Kyle McKenna , January 19, 2017 at 5:40 am GMT

    "fear of people who look or speak or pray differently."

    Typical SJW gobbledygook. First of all, no one looks, speaks, or prays like I do, so that's right out the window. It may look that way to you, but that's because you're ignorant, racist, jealous, and un-American.

    Second, and much more important: It's not fear that causes me to resist the trashing of my country. It's love. I'm not remotely fearful of third-world refuse, but I'm definitely disgusted with the way the country I love seems to be circling the drain, and I'll do just about anything I can to prevent it.

    That most definitely includes supporting a 'rumbustious' president who–despite offering genuine causes for concern–has made all the right enemies. Even if I agreed with him about nothing, I'd support him for that reason alone. What's that? They're threatening war? Nonsense. The war has been going on for half a century. But we have only begun to fight.

    larry lurker , January 19, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

    On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: "No, I don't think they care at all."

    My favorite part of the whole press conference came right before this:

    Reporter: But every president since the '70s has [released his tax returns] - Trump (sarcastically): Gee, I've never heard that. I've never heard that before.

    Mr. Anon , January 19, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT

    @Corvinus

    "Pot, meet kettle."

    Nonsense. Derb is an engaging and entertaining writer. You, on the other hand, are a tiresome bore.

    "Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white."

    Derb and his family are okay by me. You, however – I'd have no problem having you summarily deported.

    "Why should an Englishman and a Chinese woman (race mixing, I thought that was a big no-no) be allowed to enter the United States? We already have too many of your kind already!"

    No, we have too many of your kind, whatever your kind may be.

    "Indeed, the proportions in each case bears examining. How many American Muslims committed acts of terrorism on American soil prior to 911?"

    Prior to 911? What's so special about that day? Gosh, what might have happened on that particular date. How many countries did Hitler invade before Czechoslovakia?

    "This is gooblygook. Either a person is loyal or disloyal."

    No, they can simply be uninterested. I.e., America really isn't their country, it's just a place they happen to be.

    "Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate."

    You are a fool – a contemptible and stupid fool. Nixon was no dirtier than either Johnson or Kennedy. He was taken down because the Washington Press Corps, the Democratic party (which he had humiliated), and elements of the Civil Service wanted him gone.

    Wizard of Oz , January 19, 2017 at 9:46 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer

    To be fair (why you might ask? But let me slide on) Obama did speak of not bullying small countries. I am not aware of any drone strikes on people who were government officials or otherwise representative of their small countries. Are you? Or of any other assassinations. Trade sanctions?

    Anon , January 19, 2017 at 9:49 am GMT

    One good thing about Trump presidency is the anti-war Left will be activated once again. Hopefully, they will prevent future wars.

    Autochthon , January 19, 2017 at 11:03 am GMT
    @Binyamin

    For the first time in history we will have a [sic] oligarch in the White House .

    Despite my having voted for him and supported his campaign, I have my suspicions and reservations about the man as well (I'm a cynic and a pessimist), but the statement above is complete horse-shit.

    Pat the rat , January 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

    Trump's tweets are an act of genius. He has rocked the whole liberal establishment by stating his own opinions and speaking directly to those who have been ignored for years.

    This is revolutionary, Trump could never have survived a Presidential run in the past, he would have been unable to fight back, no one would be able to hear him.

    Who would have thought that a President could ignore and ridicule major media players in an age where careers are destroyed by the media because they disagree with gay marriage...

    Agent76 , January 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

    Nov 21, 2016 Trump Is An Inside Job

    "Statists are always gonna state and absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Trump is merely the right's version of Obama. If you really thought the left-right paradigm was abandoned, that the powers-that-be would let an actual outsider not only run for president but win well, I suggest you spend more time researching the new world order and less time voting for some power-hungry individual who claims to make everything great again." – Dan Dicks

    https://youtu.be/VLHVikUN73s

    macilrae , January 19, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

    Thanks for a lively piece Mr Derbyshire. As we gain experience in life we realize that there are probably twenty 'good talkers' for every 'do-er' jockeying for acceptance in positions of power – and we still get taken in by the talkers, even though they almost invariably have an insignificant track-record for the desired position. They end up departing with little accomplished, still talking: Obama being a perfect text book example.

    You say:

    And just as change is not necessarily good, fear is not necessarily bad. We have the fear instinct for a very good reason: to preserve ourselves against dangers. We may argue about whether some one particular phenomenon is or is not dangerous, but fear itself is useful and valuable, not a failing or a weakness.

    I remember, when running a company, there came one of those fashionable (and short-lived) management crazes promoting the ideas of W. Edwards Deming, an American whose philosophy helped to bring about a massive change in Japanese industry. Deming asserted that 'quality' had to be instilled into everything in the workplace and he had fourteen points for management – mostly sound common sense except, I could never get along with point number eight "abolish fear in the workplace". Now, this sounds terrific and who could oppose it?

    Except that without a little bit of fear/uncertainty/insecurity, no organization can run well – people just get too comfortable and secure and discipline declines. But how the Hell can you ever admit to that in public? Or in a book? Of course you can't!

    Che Guava , January 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    Congrats USA. Nice article as always Mr. Derb,, but I think you are too optimistic. We will have to wait and see. From what little I know of USA polititcs, Trump is great because so many of his attackers are arseholes. Myths floating about the pallets of cash to Iran：simply a retum of stolen money, Much more to say. Too tired.

    Rurik , January 19, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

    @Binyamin

    The dirt poor white middle Americans whose factories have closed and communities decimated, voted for him in droves and where are they now? . I expect the poor whites who voted for him will soon realize that they have been mugged.

    yea, we'd have been so much better off with Hillary, huh?

    but you're forgetting one thing about Trump's victory regardless of all of that-
    and that's how great it makes us deplorables all feel at watching Obama and Michelle and people like you going through your butt-hurt, existential crisis. Your angst and dread exhilarates us all and reminds us how wonderful the political process can be. How, in a word; satisfying .. it can be.

    so as your knickers are twisting over your equivocating gender bits, we're buoyed by your tears. In fact, I'd like to see a veritable ocean of your collective tears, and maybe sail a huge, obnoxious yacht from Texas to Kalingrad on it, flying a proud confederate, rebel battle flag. And I'll even name the ship The Deplorables, and when I've had my fill of Budweiser beer, Sherriff Joe and Vlad and I'll (I'd invite him too) relieve our white male piss into your ocean of tears, and watch as the salt mingles with the diversity. I'd be fun, no?

    Just watching Van Jones and Michelle and all those Hollywood snowflakes and SJW and castrating Maddow dykes and sodomites and race hustlers and La Raza pendejos and Kristol war pigs and entrenched ticks in DC- sucking the blood of the republic, and all the assorted butt-hurt losers and haters that have languished in smug certitude at the destruction of my kind, just seeing them all desolate and inconsolable, just that, makes the Donald Trump win a precious moment to savor and cherish.

    So please do keep posting, and telling us all how bad it's going to be. How indeed, calamitous and catastrophic! this all is. Where else can I relish such delicious and tasty morsels of sweet schadenfreude, than right here on the UR?

    Agree: woodNfish
    woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

    @Binyamin

    His cabinet appointees are almost exclusively wealthy (actually, extremely wealthy) white men.

    Obviously you are a dumbass racist or you would know that white people, especially white men are extremely smart and capable. Don't want to believe me? Pull your head out of your ass for a second and look around you – we created almost everything you see or use. Your modern world doesn't exist at all without us because WE created it from the constitutional laws you live by to the car you drive, cell phone you play Angry Birds on, to the computer and the software that runs it and lets you post to this site. Oh yeah – we also created the Internet. Yeah, that's right – White Men – the best thing that ever happened to this world and your shitty life. Get over yourself, racist!

    woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT
    @attilathehen

    A white man who married a brownish-yellow Asian woman cannot tell his Asian offspring that they cannot date or associate with blacks.

    Many Asians, maybe even most, consider blacks to be sub-human.

    woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT

    @macilrae

    W. Edwards Deming, an American whose philosophy helped to bring about a massive change in Japanese industry.

    Deming went to Japan to sell his ideas because American manufacturing wouldn't listen to him. His quality ideas are now instituted in the ISO requirements which every manufacturer adheres to if they want to sell internationally.

    macilrae , January 20, 2017 at 12:40 am GMT
    @woodNfish

    Certainly – but at least you don't see fellow management saluting you in the corridor with fourteen fingers anymore – it came and went in US as a fad lasting approximately two years but required more than ten for full implementation.

    dfordoom , Website January 20, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT
    @Anon

    One good thing about Trump presidency is the anti-war Left will be activated once again.

    Hopefully, they will prevent future wars.

    One would like to think that. However the entity that calls itself the Left has become remarkably fond of war. They've discovered that war could be a useful tool for imposing transgender bathroom rights on the entire planet.

    If Trump (God forbid) looked like starting a war with Russia would there be any opposition from an anti-war Left?

    woodNfish , January 20, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT
    @macilrae

    I have no idea what you mean by "saluting with 14 fingers", but ISO is not a fad. Drive around any area with manufacturing and you will see companies touting their ISO 9000 certification because of Deming. His ideas were good and he has had a lasting effect on manufacturing across the globe.

    Agree: Dan Hayes
    Crawfurdmuir , January 20, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

    @Corvinus

    It's the country of those immigrants who are naturalized, either recently or in the past. That fact is undeniable.

    It's quite deniable. The founding stock of this country were not "immigrants" – they were colonists. They never left the realms of the British monarch. They simply moved to his dominions beyond the seas. Thus they never had to be naturalized, since they were already his subjects. When they declared their independence, they made themselves citizens of their own country. Again, no act of naturalization was necessary.

    As Steve Sailer has often remarked, the story of these founders and patriots as colonists, frontiersmen, and pioneers has been allowed to fade from the public consciousness in favor of the narrative of the "wretched refuse of [the old world's] teeming shore " Yet immigrants past and present enjoy American liberty and prosperity only because of the efforts of the original settlers to win them, and their willingness to share those blessings with deserving newcomers.

    bunga , January 20, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT

    Immigrant issue is the fig leaf under which certain brand of conservatives hide their frustration at the fact that the elite,the military-industrial complex , the colonizers of new age globalist and expansionist have not been to continue to provide them with the certainties and the beauties of creature comfort at a reduced affordable way as was the case until may be 1990 .

    Now they have to work like anyone else New age slavery has not exempted them from rigor of life and work as have been before. This current scenario also appeared during great depression They ,then did not have the fig leaf of blaming the immigrants to cover their naked butts that personify their mental make up and intellectual understanding of their current situation. . They went for Roosevelt's They supported New Deal. They still love free stuffs and goodies Just look at the demands for Federal emergency relief program to get their butt out of the natural disasters .

    Jeff77450 , January 20, 2017 at 7:22 pm GMT

    Mr. Derbyshire's finger-crossing aside, I predict that we haven't heard the last of Barack Hussein Obama.

    Miro23 , January 20, 2017 at 9:24 pm GMT

    Honorable Senators: My sincerest thanks I offer you. Conserve the firm foundations of our institutions. Do your work with the spirit of a soldier in the public service. Be loyal to the Commonwealth and to yourselves, and be brief; above all things, be brief.

    It's nice to see a reference to Calvin Coolidge, IMHO Americas finest post 1900 President.

    He was Progressive when it meant things like women's suffrage, opportunity for minorities and universal health care, but at the same time was a Conservative in the truest sense of the word with a great respect for the Constitution and the Founders of the US.

    He also had this really useful idea that most proposals for legislation derived from Special Interests (and needed to be excluded ), and that any legislation that did go forward had to have its downsides thoroughly checked beforehand.

    Thales the Milesian , January 20, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT

    Barak Hussein Obama has not returned the Nobel Peace (Piss) Prize. This demonstrates he lacks decency and self-respect. The warmongers Obama and Hitlery are THE fascists!!! Bush II, Obama and Hitlery to Nuerenberg! Long live PRESIDENT TRUMP!

    Miro23 , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

    @polistra

    He clearly understands how these things work, as demonstrated by his discussion of paper messages vs email. He's been 'controversial' for decades and he's been watching his back effectively for decades.

    The Zionists, CIA and FBI could finish with Trump in no time at all, but the problem is that it's not just Trump, he's only riding a wave. Eliminate Trump and they could get something much worse, so they probably calculate that it's better to try to corrupt Trump ( he's a dealmaker) despite his connection to the thing that they fear the most i.e. Radical Anglo Nationalism.

    Wizard of Oz , January 20, 2017 at 11:58 pm GMT

    @Hibernian

    The trouble is Pascal's wager implies contradictions because it is simultaneously valid for any and every god or system that promises (infinite) rewards and most of those religions don't allow for the others to be true. Anyway the concept of one's sentient self without a body has surely been impossible to believe in for several generations at least.

    Wizard of Oz , January 21, 2017 at 12:13 am GMT

    @bunga

    Why hasn't Keynes's 1930 "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" worked out? With birth control and technologucal advances since 1930 all Americans could be living in great material comfort and with plenty of leisure time for most of their lives. Is it just the crude insatiability of most human beings untamed by the more ascetic traditions? Is it status seeking by too many? (That might include enjoying the greatest locations which can't be added to with more storeys). Is it widespread criminality and its costs? Or .?

    Corvinus , January 21, 2017 at 4:40 am GMT

    @Crawfurdmuir

    "It's quite deniable. The founding stock of this country were not "immigrants" – they were colonists."

    I wasn't debating nor disputing this point. Mr. Anon pointed out that there are immigrants by which "America really isn't their country, it's just a place they happen to be." He is other than accurate in his assessment. Those groups who emigrated here and are now citizens are part of this country. It is their country as well if they went through the process legally.

    "As Steve Sailer has often remarked, the story of these founders and patriots as colonists, frontiersmen, and pioneers has been allowed to fade from the public consciousness in favor of the narrative of the "wretched refuse of [the old world's] teeming shore "

    Americans are generally aware of the founders of this country. However, immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered to be "garbage" by nativists at various points in time. Millions of immigrants who came to the States had little money, but a strong work ethic and the willingness to embrace our customs and our political traditions.

    "Yet immigrants past and present enjoy American liberty and prosperity only because of the efforts of the original settlers to win them, and their willingness to share those blessings with deserving newcomers."

    Those original settlers included the British, the Dutch, and the Spanish, among others, who also forcibly removed tribal groups from their settled areas, as well as invaded the world and invited the world by instituting slavery in the Thirteen Colonies.

    [Jan 21, 2017] The Trump Speech That No One Heard by Mike Whitney

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic: ..."
    "... "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will." ..."
    "... This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda? ..."
    "... But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA. ..."
    "... This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. ..."
    "... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    Jan 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Donald Trump wants to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. The President-elect wants to abandon the destabilizing wars and regime change operations that have characterized US policy in the past and work collaboratively with countries like Russia that have a mutual interest in fighting terrorism and establishing regional security. Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic:

    "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."

    Trump's approach to foreign policy may seem commendable given the disastrous results in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, but it is also a dramatic departure from the last 70 years of activity during which time the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow 57 foreign governments. (According to author William Blum) This is why the political class and their wealthy constituents are so worried about Trump, it's because they don't want the new president mucking-around in a process he doesn't understand, a process that has reshaped the world in a way that clearly benefits US mega-corporations while reinforcing Washington's iron grip on global power. The bottom line is that "violence works" and any deviation from the present policy represents a direct threat to the people whose continued power and prosperity depend on that violence.

    This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda?

    It doesn't, which is why they'd rather the public remain in the dark about what Trump actually said.

    But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA.

    This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. The CIA's involvement in the coups in Ukraine and Honduras, as well as the agency's funding, arming and training of Sunni militants in Libya and Syria, attest to the fact that Brennan does not see peace and reconciliation as compatible with US foreign policy objectives. Like his elitist paymasters, Brennan is committed to perpetual war, regime change, and mass annihilation. Trump offers some relief from this 70 year-long nightmare policy. Check out this quote from Vice President-elect, Mike Pence on FOX News Sunday:

    "I think the president elect has made it very clear that we have a terrible relationship with Russia right now. And that's not all our own doing, but really is a failure of American diplomacy in successive administrations. And what the president elect has determined to do is to explore the possibility of better relations. We have a common enemy in ISIS, and the ability to work with Russia to confront, hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source represents an enormously important priority of this incoming administration. But what the American people like about Donald Trump is that he's someone who can sit down, roll his sleeves up and make a deal. And what you're hearing in his reflections whether it be with Russia, or China or other countries in the world, is that we're going to reengage. We're going to put America first, we're going to reengage in a way that advances America's interests in the world and that advances peace."

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, FOX News Sunday

    "Better relations" with Russia?

    Not on your life. US elites and their think tank lackeys would never allow it, not in a million years. Even now, after six years of death and destruction in Syria, elites at the Council on Foreign Relations are still resolved to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (Re: "Aleppo's Sobering Lessons," Project Syndicate, by Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations) The same is true at the Brookings Institute where chief strategist Michael O' Hanlon leads the charge for splitting up the battered country so Washington can control vital pipeline corridors, establish military bases in the east, and eliminate a potential threat to Israeli expansion. Here's a clip from a recent piece by O' Hanlon that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The author admits that the US goal is to splinter to country into multiple parts transforming it into a failed state:

    "To achieve peace, Syria will need self-governance within a number of autonomous zones. One option is a confederal system by which the whole country is divided into such zones. A less desirable but minimally acceptable alternative could be several autonomous zones within an otherwise still-centralized state-similar to how Iraqi Kurdistan has functioned for a quarter-century .

    Many Syrians will not like the idea of a confederal nation, or even of a central government controlling half the country with the other half divided into three or four autonomous zones. But the broad vision should be developed soon." (Wall Street Journal)

    "Autonomous zones" in a "confederal system" is a sobriquet for a broken, Balkanized failed state run by tribal elders, disparate warlords and bloodthirsty jihadists. O' Hanlon's vision for Syria is a savage dysfunctional dystopia run by homicidal fanatics who rule with an iron fist. Is it any wonder why the Syrian people have fought tooth and nail to fend off the terrorist onslaught?

    The United States is entirely responsible for the bloody decimation of Syria. It is absurd to think that either the Saudis, the Qataris or the Turks would have launched a war on a strategically-critical nation like Syria without a green light from Washington. The conflict is just the latest hotspot in Washington's 15 year-long war of terror. The ultimate goal is to remove all secular Arab leaders who may pose a threat to US imperial ambitions, open up the region to US-dominated extractive industries, and foment enough extremism to legitimize a permanent military presence.

    Russia's intervention into the Syrian conflict in September 2015, has cast doubt on Washington's ability to prevail in the six year-long war. The election of Donald Trump has further complicated matters by affecting a seismic shift in policy that could end the fighting and lead to improved relations between the US and Russia. Naturally, that is not in the interests of the vicious neocons or their liberal interventionist counterparts who see the proxy war in Syria as a pivotal part of their plan to clip Russia's wings, discredit Putin in the eyes of the international community, and lay the groundwork for regime change in Moscow. Washington's ultimate plan for Russia hews closely to that of Zbigniew Brzezinski who– in an titled "A Geostrategy for Eurasia"– had this to say:

    "Given (Russia's) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia - composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic - would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization." (Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

    Nice, eh? In other words, Washington's plan for Russia is no different than its plan for Syria. Both countries will be chopped up into smaller bite-size chunks eliminating the possibility of a strong nationalist government rising up and resisting Washington's relentless exploitation and repression. It's divide and conquer writ large.

    "A loosely confederated Russia" also fits perfectly with Washington's top priority to spread military bases across Asia, control crucial energy supplies, open up financial markets, impose Washington's neoliberal economic policies, and maintain a stranglehold on China's explosive growth. It's the Great Game all over again, and Washington is "In it to win it."

    Here's an excerpt from a speech Hillary Clinton gave in 2011 titled "America's Pacific Century". The speech underscores the importance that elites attach to the "rebalancing" plan contained in the term "pivot to Asia". The strategy relies on the opening up of new markets to US corporations and Wall Street, controlling critical resources, and "forging a broad-based military presence" across the continent. Washington intends to be the main player in the world's most prosperous region. Here's Clinton:

    "The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action . One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment - diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise - in the Asia-Pacific region

    Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia."

    ("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

    Onward, to Asia, the next great US battlefield! The killing never ends.

    As we noted earlier, the pivot to Asia is Washington's top priority. Clinton merely confirms what geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out in his 1997 magnum opus The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Here's a short excerpt from the book:

    "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. .About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

    For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible. The State Department's coup in Kiev as well as aggressive efforts to restrict the flow of Russian gas to the EU via Nord Stream and South Stream, have temporarily succeeded in undermining Moscow's plan for accelerated economic integration. Had Hillary won the election, the US would have stepped up its provocations, its sanctions, its military buildup on Russia's borders, its gas war, its attacks on Russia's markets and currency, and its proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine. But now that Trump has been thrown into the mix, anything is possible. Even a fundamental change in the policy.

    The question is whether the deep state powerbrokers –who have already launched a number of attacks on Trump in the media - will throw in the towel and allow Trump to develop his own independent foreign policy or take steps to have him removed from office.

    Early indications suggest that a coup is already underway.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Diogenes , January 19, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 200

    Trump to date has been "all talk and no action" and as we know "actions speak louder than words".
    The voters who put their trust in Trump rather than Hillary now expect actions and Trump to deliver on his election "plank".
    Needless to say politicians tend to "talk the walk" but not "walk the walk". So unless he delivers he is going to be another big disappointment for his supporters. I and many other cynics have maintained he is not going to deliver.
    But, what do I know? However the American Establishment probably knows a lot more than me and if they are worried about Trump and want him out of power then they feel threatened by him and his supporters may have really voted for a change that challenges the status quo.
    A purge of the Neo -liberal Globalist Establishment is long over due and much to be desired BUT we don't know who and what will replace them. Trump may be an "existential threat" to the malevolent swamp creatures that dwell in Washington but he might also be a threat to the whole country. We hope for a benevolent outcome; "Time will tell".

    Beckow , January 19, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT • 200

    But none of it has worked. Brzezinski, or whoever, can write books, can dream big, can play with maps after dinner at Georgetown parties – but it is has not worked. The 'divide and conquer' ended up dividing the world more, and conquering almost nothing. It is a mess, and the coming consequences were going to be dire.

    Results matter. Trump is not just an emotional reaction to the crazy globalist neocon-liberal idiocy, he is also a reaction to failure. If Clinton took over and doubled down on the same policies (she was going to), there simply would be a lot more failure. And there is no way to dress up failures as 'good for us'. Neo-cons/liberals have had everything on their side – power, academia, media, all institutions – except results.

    Trump might fail, or he might succeed, but by coming in at this time, he is in effect saving the failing policies – they don't have to answer for the obvious and accelerating failures that these interventions have caused. The authors will avoid consequences and will very quickly shift into 'we were betrayed', or 'if we just had 10 more years', the usual escapist nonsense that failed ideologues always use. (The communist ideologues still claim that the problem was that 'they should had tried harder, had 'purer' communism', blabla .and same is true about other failed ideologies).

    And they will be back. Whether in 'a year or two' as Kerry just said at Davos, or in 2020, 2024, they will be back. This mental state is incurable. (But if we get a few years break, well, let's be thankful for that.)

    TG , January 19, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT • 200

    An interesting and well-reasoned post. Indeed, it's kind of shocking when you think about it just how much our government is doing running around the world messing in the affairs of nations that really shouldn't be our concern

    About whether Trump means what he said during the campaign, well yes, there is always the danger that he will 'pull an Obama' and stab his constituents in the back – talk is cheap. And yet, if that were the case then, as with Obama, we would expect the elites to make nice with him. Instead the elites are if anything ramping up their attacks.

    Now the enemy of my enemy is not always a friend – Trump could yet be a disaster. But the war that the deep state is waging on him is perhaps not a bad sign.

    And for those who find his tweets repellent, well, that's the only mechanism he has to avoid letting the corporate press completely shut him out and control the dialog. Trump's genius (or luck) is that by being outrageous he has, unlike Nader or Perot or Dean etc., been unable to be silenced by the corporate press. Although in the long run it can't be a sustainable system I would say that breaking up the big corporate industrial/press cartels should be a prime aim. No more news outlets owned by (for example) tech titans with a zillion dollars in CIA contracts and numerous other non-press business interests, you get the idea.

    Robert Magill , January 20, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

    For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible.

    Too late. In December the last remaining Sharia objections to trade in gold were resolved. One billion plus Muslims can now bypass paper money at will and trade in gold. (Gaddafi attempted to do that in Africa and it cost him his life) China has begun to purchase oil with gold all over the mideast. Bye bye petro dollars. Hello breadlines in the former empire.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    alexander , January 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT • 300

    Mike,

    It is well worth considering the possibility that were our perpetual war making to finally end, our "deep state neocon warmongers " might find themselves on the receiving end of a very robust "reckoning" for the titanic criminal catastrophes they have inculcated.

    Please tell me where is it written that they shouldn't be ?

    The prodigious assault to disinherit President Trump may well reflect not only their contempt at the thought he might be ending their "evil" wars, but the very real fear in their hearts, they may be held to account, for starting them in the first place.

    One cannot overstate the level of absolute impunity our Neocons have enjoyed over the last decade, for committing some of the most horrific crimes the world has seen, since WWII.

    Nor can one discount their imperial need of a win for Queen Hillary as being, first and foremost, a lock on that very impunity.

    Her loss at the ballot box had very little to do with the voters rejection of her projected veneer of "progressive " values, but a frank realization by the electorate that Ms. Clinton was nothing more than a belligerent neocon warmonger in a phony "liberal" pantsuit.

    This "unraveling" has left them all twisting in the wind.

    How could it not ?

    After all, Donald Trump, is a billionaire oligarch who not only wants "peace", but has been highly articulate and cuttingly accurate as to how (and why) our wars have been total disasters.

    This presents quite an unsettling conundrum for all the back room billionaire oligarchs who have always been able to buy their wars as well as the Presidents ( and the Press ) willing to start them.

    The fact they might, now, find themselves out of their hegemonic "drivers seat" .and in the criminals "hot seat", as targets for "bone-crushing" war crimes tribunals, . could have them all frantically climbing the walls.

    Anonymous , January 20, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT • 100

    Well, even if he does a little of what he promised – such as deport those illegals that have a criminal record – that alone will be good. If he could also do something for the Millennials to be able to move out of their parents' homes, that would be good too.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Obama's foreign policy was expansive, secretive, and wedded to the status quo.

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

    As the follow-up act to George W. Bush, Barack Obama was supposed to restore the United States to the fold of respectable nations whose leaders did not devise such foreign policy goals as "smokin' 'em out."

    Particularly given Obama's campaign pledge to engage in dialogue with traditional American enemies like Iran and Cuba - both included in the Axis of Evil-plus-three configuration marketed during the Bush era - optimistic sectors of the international community predicted the advent of a humane, benevolent superpower.

    The naďveté of such thinking was rather evident from the get-go; now, at the end of Obama's reign, it's glaringly obvious. Consider the recent calculation by the Council on Foreign Relations that the United States "dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries" in 2016 alone - an estimate the authors acknowledge is "undoubtedly low."

    In February 2015, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that Obama's covert drone strikes on territories where the United States is not officially at war had already "killed almost six times more people and twice as many civilians than those ordered in the Bush years."

    Obama's rapprochement with Cuba and his nuclear deal with Iran have been hailed by fans as landmark achievements and alleged evidence of his status as peacemonger-in-chief. Often lost in the celebrations, however, is the fact that both locales are still targeted with sanctions that undeniably constitute "war by other means."

    In Cuba, Obama might have bolstered his ethical credentials by fulfilling his promise to close Guantánamo, thereby terminating the US occupation of Cuban territory and ending a symbol of America's global impunity.

    In the Middle East, efforts to defuse the nuclear issue would have been less blatantly hypocritical if Obama hadn't also approved a $38 billion military aid package to Israel, the largest in US history.

    This is the same Israel that happens to maintain a nuclear arsenal and grants itself immunity from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Beyond some jabs at Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama has not allowed the Israeli military's recurring slaughter of Palestinian civilians to get in the way of his principled commitment to Israel's right to " self-defense ."

    The full extent of the fallout of Obama's rule, of course, remains to be seen. But for one particularly troubling hint as to his legacy-in-progress, one need look no further than Medea Benjamin's recent remarks in the Guardian : "The twisted legal architecture the Obama administration has constructed to justify its interventions, especially extrajudicial drone killings with no geographic restrictions, will now be transferred into the erratic hands of Donald Trump." Call it teamwork .

    -Belén Fernandez

    [Jan 21, 2017] US China Policy: Is Obama Schizoid?

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Eamonn Fingleton

    December 8, 2016

    Trust mainstream media commentators to get their priorities right! While they dished out hell to Donald Trump the other day over his 10-minute conversation with the president of Taiwan, they could hardly have been more accommodative all these years of a rather more consequential American affront to mainland China: Barack Obama's so-called "pivot" to Asia.

    As the London-based journalist John Pilger points out, the absurdly named pivot, which has been a central feature of U.S. foreign policy since 2012, is clearly intended to tighten America's military containment of the Middle Kingdom. In Pilger's words, Washington's nuclear bases amount to a hangman's noose around China's neck.

    Pilger makes the point in a searing new documentary, The Coming War on China. Little known in the United States, Pilger has been a marquee name in British journalism since the 1960s. First as a roving reporter for the Daily Mirror and later as a television documentary maker, he has spent more than fifty years exposing the underside of American foreign policy – and very often, given London's predilection to play Tonto to Washington's Lone Ranger, that has meant exposing the underside of British foreign policy also.

    Pilger built his early reputation on opposition to the Vietnam war; more recently he emerged as a scathing critic of the Bush-Blair rush to invade Iraq after 9/11.

    In his latest movie, Pilger, a 77-year-old Australian, argues that the "pivot" sets the world up for nuclear Armageddon. The Obama White House probably disagrees; but, not for the first time, Pilger is asking the right questions.

    This is not to suggest that Washington doesn't have legitimate issues. But its China strategy is upside down. While it rarely misses an opportunity to lord it over Beijing militarily, its economic policy in the face of increasingly outrageous Chinese provocation could hardly be more spineless. Instead of insisting that China honor its WTO obligations, U.S. policymakers have looked the other way as Beijing has not only maintained high trade barriers against American exports but, far worse, has contrived to force the transfer of much of what is left of America's once awe-inspiring reservoir of world-beating manufacturing technologies.

    In the case of the auto industry, for instance, Beijing's proposition goes like this: "We'd love to buy American cars. But those cars must be made in China – and the Detroit companies must bring their best manufacturing technologies." Such technologies then have a habit of migrating rapidly to rising Chinese rivals.

    By indulging China economically and provoking it militarily, the Obama administration would appear to be schizoid. But this is to judge things from a commonsensical outsider's perspective – always a mistake in a place as inbred and smug as Washington. Seen from inside the Beltway, everything looks perfectly rational. Whether Washington is giving away the U.S. industrial base, on the one hand or arming to the teeth against a putative Chinese bogeyman on the other, the dynamic is the same: lobbying money.

    As the U.S. industrial base has been shipped machine-by-machine, and job-by-job, to China, America's ability to pay its way in the world has correspondingly imploded. Although rarely mentioned in the press (does the American press even understand such elementary and obvious economic consequences?), this means America has become ever more dependent on other nations to fund its trade deficits. The funding comes mainly in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. And guess who is the biggest buyer? The Communist regime in Beijing, of course. In effect, the bemused Chinese are paying for the privilege of having nukes pointed at them!

    That is not a sustainable situation. Beijing no doubt has a plan. Washington, tone-deaf as always in foreign affairs, has not yet discovered there is a problem. We have been fated to live in interesting times.

    Pilger's documentary will air in the United States on RT on December 9, 10, and 11. For details click here .

    Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2008).

    [Jan 21, 2017] Departing Obama Tearfully Shoos Away Loyal Drone Following Him Out Of White House

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.theonion.com

    WASHINGTON-Stopping and turning around as he made his way across the South Lawn after hearing the unmanned aerial vehicle hovering just feet behind him, outgoing President Barack Obama tearfully shooed away a loyal MQ-9 Reaper drone attempting to follow him out of the White House, sources confirmed Friday.

    "Go on now-get out of here!" said the former commander-in-chief, his lower lip trembling and his eyes welling with tears as he affected a stern tone of voice in an attempt to scare off the faithful hunter-killer drone that had spent the past eight years obediently at his side.

    "You can't come with me anymore, you got that? Can't you see this is for your own good? Now scram. What are you waiting for? Go!" At press time, a heartbroken Obama had thrown a rock in the drone's direction, causing the unmanned aerial vehicle to flee into the sky, where it paused to look back one last time at its old master before flying off toward a Yemeni tribal wedding.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Obama's Biggest Lies

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Those are not the biggest. Russian hysteria was probably the biggest. Obama's Biggest Lies TeamDepends -> WTFRLY , Jan 20, 2017 9:24 AM

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/05/17/the-vetting-barack-ob...

    y3maxx -> WTFRLY , Jan 20, 2017 9:33 AM

    Will Trump "drain the swamp".

    GunnerySgtHartman , Jan 20, 2017 9:21 AM

    Another huge Obama lie: Obamacare would result in $2500 savings per year per family!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/obama-promised-healthcare-premiums-would-fall-2500-family-they-have-climbed-4865

    Frodobaggins -> GunnerySgtHartman , Jan 20, 2017 10:06 AM

    Ahh the memoreies.. remember this whopper?

    "One study shows that through new options created by the Affordable Care Act, nearly 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for less than $100 a month. Think about that. Through the marketplaces you can get health insurance for what may be the equivalent of your cell phone bill. Or your cable bill. And that's a good deal"

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/28/barack-ob...

    A large portion of America is either very stupid or asleep. Let's hope it's the latter. If Trump accpplishes half of what he's promised America will be better off for it.

    CaptainObvious , Jan 20, 2017 9:26 AM

    Oh please, WaPo, you're not even close to Obama's biggest lie. Obama's biggest lie was that he was a Constitutional scholar. That man has never even read the Constitution. The only thing he ever did with the Constitution was to wipe his ass with it. Sheeit. You know how hard it is to remove fecal stains from a piece of 230 year old parchment?

    Bill of Rights , Jan 20, 2017 9:35 AM

    " HOPE AND CHANGE " was the greatest lie ever in American history.

    Sean7k , Jan 20, 2017 9:37 AM

    Our reality is perception generated by people determined to maintain a slave society for their exclusive benefit. As perception must pass through individual filters, we have the ability to change reality as we currently experience it.

    By the use of intention, firmly expressed, humans as a group can disrupt the ruling paradigm. By rejecting the hatred and division provided by media and others, we can choose to embrace love, reciprocity, integrity, charity, etc. All the attributes we hold as cherished values.

    Reality will be changed. Without firing a shot, clubbing a friend/fiend or destroying one's property. We hold in our hands the power to effectively change the parasites into friends and family.

    However, hateful dialogue will accomplish nothing. There is a reason we all yearn to be loved and by experiencing it we learn to love others as well. It is a special kind of magic and we are all grand magicians.

    [Jan 19, 2017] Obamas Parting Shots - RPI 16th Jan Update

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ron Paul went out with a bang in 2008. He refused to endorse the neocon who won the nomination and instead brought together candidates from the "minor" parties to agree on a basic set of principles upon which this Institute was founded in 2013. It was an excellent parting shot. The McCainiacs in their arrogance bade good riddance to the anti-interventionist wing of the party and...the rest is history (as it was four years later). Did they learn? Of course not. ..."
    "... So at that time, in 2008, Ron Paul became the steady voice of the non-interventionist movement even as much of the anti-Bush "peace movement" faded into silence hoping that Obama would live up to his Nobel Peace Prize billing. Instead, Obama bombed his way through his final year in the White House as he did the preceding seven years: he dropped an average of three bombs per hour in 2016. That's three per hour, each 24 hours, each 52 weeks, each 12 months. With some admirable exceptions, the Left side of the peace movement went into hibernation for eight years. ..."
    "... President Obama is going out with a bang, but of an entirely different sort. After he and his surrogates all but accused President-elect Trump of being a Kremlin agent -- bolstered by the "fake news" experts at the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media -- he made a couple of moves in attempt to bind his successor to a confrontational stance regarding Russia. ..."
    "... In today's Liberty Report , Dr. Paul and I mentioned the famous April, 1967 antiwar speech of Martin Luther King where he blasted the superficial patriotism of those who cheer the state's wars without question. ..."
    "... We are in the same situation today, where anyone who questions the neocon and mainstream media narrative that to oppose a nuclear confrontation with Russia makes one somehow a Russian agent. ..."
    Jan 17, 2017 | Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    It seems strange that this will be the last time I write you under the presidency of Barack Obama. I recall the slight ray of hope we felt when he took office, after eight years of the crazed neocons who ran Bush's White House. At the time, Dr. Paul had just finished his ground-breaking 2008 presidential run and so much had changed for us in the Congressional office. While we were legally separated from campaign activities, we felt the mist from the waves crashing on the shore of American political life. Ron Paul went from being a widely-admired and principled Member of Congress to the world-renowned ambassador of honest money and non-interventionism! A revolution was born!

    By the 2008 race, Bush and his foreign policy were thoroughly discredited, and Ron Paul offered the strongest opposition to the warmed-over Bushism that the hapless McCain campaign had on offer. Obama had run as the peace candidate, and the peace candidate always wins -- even if he is a liar (see: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, GW Bush, etc.). But while many of us hoped for the best, we also knew there was little chance for us to change course.

    Ron Paul went out with a bang in 2008. He refused to endorse the neocon who won the nomination and instead brought together candidates from the "minor" parties to agree on a basic set of principles upon which this Institute was founded in 2013. It was an excellent parting shot. The McCainiacs in their arrogance bade good riddance to the anti-interventionist wing of the party and...the rest is history (as it was four years later). Did they learn? Of course not.

    So at that time, in 2008, Ron Paul became the steady voice of the non-interventionist movement even as much of the anti-Bush "peace movement" faded into silence hoping that Obama would live up to his Nobel Peace Prize billing. Instead, Obama bombed his way through his final year in the White House as he did the preceding seven years: he dropped an average of three bombs per hour in 2016. That's three per hour, each 24 hours, each 52 weeks, each 12 months. With some admirable exceptions, the Left side of the peace movement went into hibernation for eight years.

    President Obama is going out with a bang, but of an entirely different sort. After he and his surrogates all but accused President-elect Trump of being a Kremlin agent -- bolstered by the "fake news" experts at the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media -- he made a couple of moves in attempt to bind his successor to a confrontational stance regarding Russia.

    First, he sent thousands of US troops to permanently be stationed in Poland for the first time ever. These troops and military equipment, including hundreds of tanks and so on, are literally on the border with Russia, but any complaint or counter-move is reported by the lapdog media as "Russian aggression." Imagine five thousand Chinese troops with the latest in war-making equipment on the Mexican border with the US, with a few ships in the Gulf of Mexico to boot. Would Washington welcome such a move? Then today we discover that Obama has sent a few hundred US Marines to take up in Norway for the first time since World War II. Of course it's not enough to be a military threat to Russia nor is it enough to actually defend Norway if "Russian expansionism" dictates an invasion. So what is the purpose? To wrong-foot any ideas Trump might have about turning down the nuclear-war-with-Russia dial.

    Ron Paul will continue his position as the Trump Administration takes hold of the levers of power: He continues to push honest money, individual liberties, and non-interventionism. Do you agree that we must not compromise this position no matter who is in power?

    In today's Liberty Report , Dr. Paul and I mentioned the famous April, 1967 antiwar speech of Martin Luther King where he blasted the superficial patriotism of those who cheer the state's wars without question.

    We are in the same situation today, where anyone who questions the neocon and mainstream media narrative that to oppose a nuclear confrontation with Russia makes one somehow a Russian agent.

    And Obama's big miss while he still had the chance? Just a few days ago the media reported that whistleblower Chelsea Manning was on the shortlist for having her 35 year sentence commuted. Imagine decades in solitary confinement for the "crime" of telling your fellow citizens the crimes being committed by their government.

    As the news that Manning was being considered for presidential clemency broke, Dr. Paul joined with RPI Board Member former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to send an urgent letter to President Obama to request that Manning's sentence be commuted. This quick action of the Ron Paul Institute was coordinated with Amnesty International and represents a new, more activist phase for us. With our collective following in the millions, we can mobilize opinion quickly on urgent matters such as this. Obama has not yet responded, but you can be sure that our call to action was well-heard in Washington.

    ... ... ...

    Daniel McAdams
    Executive Director
    Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    [Jan 18, 2017] What happens if Trump decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable?

    Never happened. No purges as of march 2019
    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> reason ...
    Do allies refuse to share intel with the US due to Trump-Russia
    The Great Game has turned. Reply Monday, January 16, 2017 at 08:02 AM

    ilsm -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 09:46 AM

    US could do with a little better assessments and a lot less from many "allies".

    Do you mistrust US allies?

    Like I do!

    Chris G -> jonny bakho... , -1
    $20 says "Yes."

    And what happens if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable? I have no idea but I'm guessing they won't go flip burgers at McDonalds. (See also disbanding the Iraqi army ca. 2003.) Will they exhibit an entrepreneurial spirit? If so then what form will it take?

    [Jan 18, 2017] M of A - It Cant Happen Here - Color Revolution By Force

    Jan 15, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    "It Can't Happen Here" - Color Revolution By Force

    The "Donald Trump likes Russia" and "Russia bad" strategy was propagated by the Clinton election campaign. It build on constant U.S. incitement against Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine partially failed and after the Russian intervention on the side of the government in Syria. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was the main force behind the original anti-Russian campaign. When Clinton lost the election to Trump the theme connecting Trump and Russia was continued and fanned by parts of the U.S. intelligence community.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI published a propaganda report claiming nefarious Russian cyber activities during the election without providing any evidence. The report came together with the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by the Obama administration. The DHS then planted a false story of Russian cyber-intrusion into a Vermont utility with the Washington Post.

    The Director of National Intelligence Clapper followed up with a "report" of alleged Russian interference with the election. Even the Putinphobe Masha Gessen found that to be a shoddy piece of implausible propaganda. The DNI then helped to publish an MI6 "report" of fakes asserting Russian influence on Trump. In an unprecedented threat escalation the Pentagon sends a whole brigade and other assets to the Russian border.

    Now the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, warns the President elect to " watch his tongue ". Is there any precedence of some "intelligence" flunky threatening a soon to be President?

    This has been, all together, a well though out propaganda campaign to reinforce the scheme Clinton and her overlords have been pushing for quite some time: Russia is bad and a danger. Trump is aligned with Russia. Something needs to be done against Trump but most importantly against Russia.

    Propaganda works. The campaign is having some effects :

    Americans are more concerned than they were before the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign began about the potential threat Russia poses to the country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday. The Jan. 9-12 survey found that 82 percent of American adults, including 84 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans, described Russia as a general "threat" to the United States. That's up from 76 percent in March 2015 when the same questions were asked.

    Such extensive and expensive campaigns are not run by chance. They have a larger purpose.

    Originally the campaign was only directed against Russia with the apparent aim of reigniting a (quite profitable) cold war. Seen from some distance the campaign now looks more like the preparation for a typical CIA induced color-revolution :

    In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.

    What is missing yet in the U.S. are the demonstrations and the large civilian strife.

    Unlike the earlier CIA launched color revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and elsewhere, all recent U.S. instigated "color-revolutions", i.e. putsch attempts, have been accompanied by the use of force from the side of the "peaceful protesters". Such color-revolutions by force were instigate in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

    A common denominator of these was the primary use of violence occurred from the "good side" against the "bad side" while the propagandists claimed that it was the "bad side" that started the shooting and strife. The "good site" is inevitably "demonstrating peacefully" even when many policemen or soldiers on the "bad side" die. Thus was the case in Libya where the U.S. and its Gulf proxies used al-Qeada aligned Jihadis from Benghazi as "peaceful demonstrators" against the government, in Syria where the NATO and Gulf supported Muslim Brotherhood killed policemen and soldiers during "peaceful demonstrations" in Deraa and in Ukraine where fascist sharpshooters killed demonstrators and policemen from a hotel roof in the hand of the opposition. All three happened while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

    There have been claims of an upcoming color-revolution in the U.S. from different extremist sides of the political spectrum. Before the election Neocon Jackson Diehl claimed that "Putin" was preparing a color-revolution against a President-elect Clinton to enthrone Donald Trump. But as Trump won fair and square and Clinton lost that plot did not make it to the stage. After the election the conspiracy peddler Wayne Madsen immediately " discovered " that Clinton and George Soros were launching a color-revolution against Trump.

    Remnants of the Clinton campaign have called for a large anti-Trump demonstration during the inauguration on January 20 in Washington DC.

    Mass shootings in the United States by this or that type of lunatics happen every other month. There are no wild conspiracy theories or nefarious plots necessary to consider some what-if questions around such an event.

    So what happens after some "Trump supporter" on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?

    What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing "massacre" was a "Russian plot"?

    Posted by b on January 15, 2017 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    Comments next page " Anon | Jan 15, 2017 12:30:39 PM | 1
    Tyranny abroad leads to tyranny at home.

    The Greeks knew it and so do we.

    I am amazed and scared how easily propaganda works in democracies, while no one, NO ONE ever deal or mentions it! Western populations are truly naive and swallow anything. No wonder Hitler could amass millions of germans.

    Posted by: Test | Jan 15, 2017 12:42:17 PM | 2

    I am amazed and scared how easily propaganda works in democracies, while no one, NO ONE ever deal or mentions it! Western populations are truly naive and swallow anything. No wonder Hitler could amass millions of germans.

    Posted by: Test | Jan 15, 2017 12:42:17 PM | 2

    Yonatan | Jan 15, 2017 12:43:14 PM | 3
    What will happen? A good question?

    The signs are not good. The veteran journalist Claire Hollingworth has just died at 105. Finian Cunningham comments on her death and the current amnesia over the significance of the 1000's of NATO tanks massing in east Europe :

    "A measure of this apparent collective amnesia can be gleaned from the passing of veteran English newspaper journalist Clare Hollingworth, who died this week at the age of 105. Hollingworth published the "scoop of the century" in 1939 when she first reported Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, which then sparked the Second World War. The headline of her original report in Britain's Daily Telegraph on August 29, 1939, read: "1,000 tanks massed on Polish frontier."

    Amid media tributes to the deceased journalist, reference to contemporary events was absent. In the same week that Clare Hollingworth passed away, tanks were again rolling into Poland from Germany, this time driven by American troops. But Western media outlets made no such connection."


    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 12:59:29 PM | 4
    Advice for the USA to simplify things: Cut out the middle man and inaugurate Putin on the 20th.

    Bob In Portland | Jan 15, 2017 1:08:57 PM | 5
    One thing to understand is that, since 1963, the President is no longer fully a President in the US. The CIA has constructed a system of control within Congress, the military, and the intelligence services to direct US policy. When Jimmy Carter's CIA Director Stansfield Turner tried to eliminate a lot of the ops side of intelligence (the agents and the plots that always seem to be nearby other course corrections (like Dallas, Watergate) the ops side created an oil crisis and a hostage crisis in Iran. Reagan had been a spokesman for the Congress For Freedom, a CIA operation that imported fascists, to include a large group of Ukrainian OUN-B residua. Those people and their children became the backbone of the US reinsertion of fascism in Eastern Europe and Russia.

    Since Reagan, all Presidents seem to have deep intelligence backgrounds. Of course, George Bush was former CIA Director (and undoubtedly an agent prior to his political career), and his son was his son. Some of Dubya's pre-Presidential failed business dealings appear to have been money laundering, likely for the CIA Since they burst upon the national scene there are hints that the Clintons probably were recruited for intelligence work in the late sixties, prior to even meeting each other.

    Obama, with SOS Clinton looking over his shoulder, was mostly a Deep State ally.

    Clinton was supposed to win. In fact, there are indications that Clinton and her Deep State allies worked to make Trump her opponent. She succeeded that far, but not enough to win the electoral college. Trump is certainly anathema to most working class Americans. His problem with the Deep State is that he wants friendly relations with Russia.

    What the world is witnessing is how the Deep State negotiates hardball with Trump.

    Krollchem | Jan 15, 2017 1:09:34 PM | 6
    Using techniques of her mentor, Hillary and her allies appear to be planning a purple revolution in the US:
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution.html

    james | Jan 15, 2017 1:14:12 PM | 7
    valid speculation on your part b... the propaganda has gotten so thick, your scenario sounds like a ripe idea..

    the usa appears to be imploding in on itself... i didn't realize how bad the folks in power wanted clinton to be president.. relevant article..

    time2wakeupnow | Jan 15, 2017 1:15:05 PM | 8
    "Advice for the USA to simplify things: Cut out the middle man and inaugurate Putin on the 20th"

    Or, rephrased to correctly reflect the true nature of the who's really in charge in this country: Advise for the cosmetic US government and the corporate infotainment: cut out the middle man and inaugurate the head of the Deep State on the 20th.

    ProPeace | Jan 15, 2017 1:20:29 PM | 9
    It's astounding that Fecesbrook and other social media control outlets support calls for assassination of the President-elect, by not removing them. This is gonna be an explosive January, Spring and year.

    Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Deep State War Vs. Trump, While Ex-Spook Hints At Assassination

    Mysterious snipers have been deadly present in many "peaceful revolutions":

    Land Destroyer: Color Revolution's Mystery Gunmen

    Unknown Snipers and Western backed "Regime Change"

    More 'Mysterious Snipers' Responsible For Latest Ukraine Escalation?

    The snipers of Black October

    "Yeltsin's 'Red October II'"- TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-10

    Anon | Jan 15, 2017 1:24:18 PM | 10
    5:

    I think there is a factional civil war going on in the deep state.

    Clinton who would have kept the party going was supported by the CIA, with many of their guys endorsing her.

    Trump seems to be the candidate of a less reckless faction. Remember, he was endorsed by a few hundred senior officers. It seems the army is tired of cleaning up the CIA messes.

    Recall the CIA and Army were fighting each other by proxy in Syria.

    Remember, Trump has Flynn on his side. And the army. And the FBI, and every patriot in the IC.

    In 5 days he will hold the reins of power.

    Trump wins.

    Curtis | Jan 15, 2017 1:26:39 PM | 11
    Anon 1
    "I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
    Robert E Lee to Lord Acton, 1866

    CHRISTINNE RADU | Jan 15, 2017 1:29:06 PM | 12
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-the-reality-of-syrias-popular-revolution-which-sparked-six-years-of-violence/5568564

    ProPeace | Jan 15, 2017 1:29:45 PM | 13
    Ukraine: Israeli Special Forces Unit under Neo-Nazi Command Involved in Maidan Riots?

    Camouflaged Israeli soldiers on Maidan Square


    According to the Israeli website alyaexpress-news.com, a unit of 35 armed and masked men and women on Maidan square is commanded by four former Israeli Army officers, who wear a kippah under their helmets.

    The site claims that these former officers, who live today in Ukraine, joined the movement since the beginning of the events alongside the Freedom Party (Svoboda), although the latter has a reputation for being virulently anti-Semitic.

    With the help of the Israeli Embassy, this intervention force reportedly also handled the transfer of 17 seriously injured persons to Israel for treatment.

    The presence of Israeli units had been reported in a similar scenario in Georgia, both in during the "Rose Revolution" (2003) that in the war against South Ossetia (2008).


    john | Jan 15, 2017 1:35:08 PM | 14
    gosh b, the spectre of dread you raise is downright cinematographic!

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 1:40:34 PM | 15
    CIA chief warns Trump to watch what his words
    http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/01/15/506327/US-Trump-Nazis-Russia-Putin

    Where do these people come from? Here we have a intelligence chief that blast Trump but tell to Trump that he cant blast them!

    Have deep-state/CIA ever meddled in their own nation like this before? These people are nuts.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 1:46:01 PM | 16
    I think b describes well why a color revolution is plausible. But some traditional 'color revolution' tactics, like the use of snipers, may not be necessary because:
    (1) Pence appears to be much more friendly to the Clinton/CIA establishment; and

    (2) there are other means of removing Trump: impeachment or 25th Amendment

    Anti-Trump organizations have stated their intention to disrupt the inauguration. The likelihood of street violence seems high. This "resistance" and Russian tensions will weigh on the minds of Congressman and frighten the public.

    The de-legimization campaign seems likely to culminate with Trump's impeachment for violations of the Logan act (see below) and/or VP Pence invoking the 25th Amendment. As President, Pence would choose a VP. One possible choice is Hillary - winner of the popular vote - thereby creating a 'unity' government. Democrats have already labeled such unity as = PURPLE =. Republican Party RED combined with Democratic Party BLUE.

    This trajectory helps to explain the consternation with FBI Dir. Comey. Democrats believe that Comey helped Trump in the last days of the campaign. The FBI is said to be investigating the Clintons. And Comey refused to discuss with Congress (in closed hearing) details of any possible investigation into Russian interference into US elections. Comey is now himself under investigation by DOJ's Inspector General (an Obama appointee) .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Team Trump: Flynn called Russia ambassador, no sanction talk 'plain and simple'

    It's not unusual for incoming administrations to have discussions with foreign governments before taking office. But repeated contacts just as Obama imposed sanctions raised questions about whether Trump's team discussed -- or even helped shape -- Russia's response .

    Reuters reports that Flynn and Kislyak talked several times on Dec. 29.

    Putin unexpectedly did not retaliate against the U.S. for the move, a decision Trump quickly praised.

    More broadly, Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador suggests the incoming administration has already begun to lay the groundwork for its promised closer relationship with Moscow.

    That effort appears to be moving ahead, even as many in Washington, including Republicans, have expressed outrage over intelligence officials' assessment that Putin launched a hacking operation aimed at meddling in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump.

    . . .

    Trump has been willing to insert himself into major foreign policy issues during the transition, at times contradicting the current administration and diplomatic protocol.

    He accepted a call from Taiwan's president, ignoring the longstanding "One China" policy that does not recognize the island's sovereignty. Asked about that Friday by the Journal, he responded, "Everything is under negotiation."

    He also publicly urged the U.S. to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements , then slammed the Obama administration for abstaining and allowing the measure to pass.

    47 | Jan 15, 2017 1:58:11 PM | 17
    @2, Test

    It works everywhere the same way; that is, the method is not re-invented, just repeated. People only need a period of convincing that the enemy of the day is out there to get them. Here is a short note on landscapes of fear: http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-landscape-of-fear-paranoia-and-galvanization-of-masses/

    AriusArmenian | Jan 15, 2017 2:11:36 PM | 18
    We are in a time as dangerous as the early 1960's.
    Then they wanted war in Vietnam and got rid of JFK to get it.
    Now they want a bigger war with Russia as the target.
    Anything can happen in the next few weeks.

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 2:27:33 PM | 19
    Its interesting too that the debate should be about why Democrats lost why Hillary didnt generate enough votes, no, instead they start a hysteria about Trump and Russia.

    NemesisCalling | Jan 15, 2017 2:31:38 PM | 20
    Well, if a color revolution does transpire to dethrone Trump, one thing is FOR certain: Circe and Chipnik will say, "see, I told you that Trump was at the center of the plot to give the government fully to our fascist-ponzi-overlords," without even a twinge of irony.

    jo6pac | Jan 15, 2017 2:49:18 PM | 21
    #5
    Nailed it and now they come out from behind behind the curtain to do the work under the propaganda arm the so-called liberal press own by the elite who really don't like change except when they win.

    #2, Amerika hasn't been a D in a long time if ever.

    Thanks b

    jayc | Jan 15, 2017 2:51:43 PM | 22
    Polling tends to reflect a wag-the-dog effect, i.e. the media runs a saturation campaign based on a particular premise, then polls are taken which generally support the premise. What is mildly surprising is that the alleged Russian threat perception has only increased six percentage points after all the crazy headlines of the past few weeks.

    The American public may be too polarized for a successful colour revolution. The Russia/Trump freak-out is localized in the Beltway establishment, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media - which, when united, represents a formidable force in concentrating and saturating a message across consensus reality, but the degree to which the message has actually been internalized by the public-at-large may be far less than it may appear. But the stakes are obviously very very high for the deep state faction which desires the confrontation with Russia, and therefore a dramatic false flag event is unfortunately extremely possible if it is determined that the impeachment gambit might not work. (the impeachment concept might not work, at least not immediately, because, like the electoral college, it would be too obviously a reversal of the election and a large portion of the public would reject it)

    likklemore | Jan 15, 2017 2:53:13 PM | 23
    Thanks b. One typo (it's Wayne Madsen)

    The Timeline is spot on. Right after the election, Soros held a meet-up in Washington said to be a planning session and to re-assess. Short weeks thereafter both Hill and Bill appeared sporting purple dress-up. Notice also in the ensuing weeks other Hill/Bill supporters sporting purple ties.
    Soros' underwriting revolutions is coming home to USA. He should be brought before the ICJ.

    Conspiracy theory becomes a fact.

    January 20 may ignite the spark. Bikers for Trump assembled; J20 gang; 5000 national guards and security people providing 360 barricade. What could go wrong?

    Some 4 years ago I read at the GEAB.eu LEAP's website, that they anticipated the USA would become ungovernable in year 2016.. Cue it up.
    (GEAB, France, a French Think-Tank most articles by subscription)

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Death Threats:
    To a blind person?

    1. "Death Threats Force Opera Star Bocelli To Pull Out Of Inauguration Performance"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/death-threats-force-opera-star-bocelli-pull-out-inauguration-performance

    "Andrea is very sad to be missing the chance to sing at such a huge global event but he has been advised it is simply not worth the risk..." according to a source close to blind opera singer Bocelli who had been determined to 'press ahead' and sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

    2. Will The CIA Assassinate Trump? Ron Paul Warns Of "More Powerful, Shadow Government"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/will-cia-assassinate-trump-ron-paul-warns-more-powerful-shadow-government

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    RT had this piece from Clapper, not covered by lame-stream US media.

    Published time: 14 Jan, 2017 20:32
    Edited time: 15 Jan, 2017 16:31

    " Intelligence insiders call Russian dossier 'complete fraud' – Trump
    https://www.rt.com/usa/373708-trump-us-russian-dossier-fake/

    On Thursday, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a rare statement, saying that he met with Trump to express his "profound dismay" over the dossier.
    "This document is not a US intelligence community (IC) product and I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said.

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    You would think Clapper's statement would be covered by MSM, No?:

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 2:56:40 PM | 24
    'Mass shootings' is a bit of a specious reach. Americans are psychologically and emotionally 'bleached'. The 'mass shootings' are largely juveniles on Aderal and Prozac, mentally bleached by the State. The vast majority of 'mass' shootings are collectively in the gun states, as here: https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50060317/police_shootings.0.0.png, and that's just the State shootings of citizens.

    You won't see the victorius Trumpeteers shooting into crowds, you'll see massive civil and union actions against each new Jesuit-Jew SCOTUS decision, but the Trump State will remain so opaque, and the poodled Fourth Estate so pandered and Java-Script clik-bait revenue-driven, only blogs like MoA will post the truth...if they can absent themselves fron the Two-Party Conspiracy-State Koolaid drinking.

    There is only the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed, which survives and undermines every Administration, and metastasizes on every new law and every specious blog-post about post-inauguration 'mass-shootings'.

    SOW, my PC is now in the shop, after visiting a Breitbart Jerusalem article, and watching a proxy-script malware drop down, that froze out internet access, even after I bleached my cookies and did a Foxfire uninstall and re-install. We are far more likely to 'go dark' under Trump and his Breitbart Zook propaganda machine, than see any Red-on-Blue.

    Denis | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:15 PM | 25
    Just a couple of loose (meaning bordering on idiotic) thoughts:

    1. Mina says we need to drop this whole Trump thing. And she's right. Just b/c the world is going to end on Friday doesn't mean we should be preoccupied. Besides SNL has it covered, as usual.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V8TO6y0IR4

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"

    Bob | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:53 PM | 26
    The 2004 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and the 2000 overthrow of Milosevic didn't rely on the use of violence.

    The slick youth oriented campaigns from Otpor! and the Ukrainian follow up, along with heavy support from outside actors such as the US, were enough.

    I doubt there is a need for violence to get rid of Trump if this was the strategy they intended to use. Catchy slogans amd symbols along with the support of the media could be enough to instigate some kind of proceedings leading to his removal from office.

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 3:03:55 PM | 27
    No need for a color revolution, the coup have already been made right in front of us, = Trump's image have been smeared and his policy on Russia wont work.

    laserlurk | Jan 15, 2017 3:05:28 PM | 28
    That is one good b.'s assumption and it is not far fetched at all.

    Some sort of an American Spring is looming, if things fall in place next week.
    Would it be a sort of Maidan's effect, unrest etc. remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
    What is lacking there is a critical mass. And that is people.
    Their psyche is right now not for Trump and against Clinton. It is a bit of schizophrenic situation atm. and ideals worth fighting and dying for are not too high. Or their conviction.

    What and how this is envisaged by IC might be as well a long and a painful processes of "legal" threading through various investigative hearings, commissions and panels followed by legislative votings on different issues that might come up, as impeachments, scandals and all the arsenal of "soft" torture where expected result is that Americans are kept enchanted, asleep and hypnotised, thus neutralised.
    Like the rest of us are supposed to be.

    Quickest way to jump into prevention of Trump's presidency would be to quickly build up a false flag set of events and start a big conflict with Russia or with one of their interest zones. That would set the spotlight away from Washington while fractions IC would have enough time to clear its ranks and prepare the actual coup.
    What they do not understand is that nobody ever goes to war with Russia. Ever.

    So, maybe better outcome for everybody would be wishful thinking scenario of a Designated Survivor Kiefer Sutherland's TV-series .

    rg the lg | Jan 15, 2017 3:07:00 PM | 29
    The fun thing about revolutions is that once they start it is hard to figure out where they are going to end up.

    Alas, the BEST we can hope for is a new set of oligarchs. Democracy will never happen ... it is a cover for what is now referred to as the deep state.

    In my (admittedly jaundiced) view ... a nuclear holocaust seems infinitely better than the status quo, or what might emerge from the looming conflict.

    With a nuclear Armageddon, maybe life can restart and NOT create something as vile as people: you, me and all the rest!

    Jan Sammer | Jan 15, 2017 3:11:53 PM | 30
    There is actually much more abundant evidence of British interference in the US election, than there is for Russian interference. The MI6 smear memo is a glaring example, but on top of that is the state-owned BBC constant stream of anti-Trump propaganda, the petition against allowing Trump to visit Britain, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson called Trump "clearly out of his mind", accused him of "quite stupefying ignorance" that makes him "unfit for office" and said he would not visit New York because of the "real risk of meeting Donald Trump". Where is the outrage, where is the congressional committee investigating this blatant foreign interference in our democratic process? By our ex-colonial masters to boot. Are they still nursing grudges from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812?

    Bob | Jan 15, 2017 3:13:13 PM | 31
    @Myself 26

    For a start you could have a supposedly 200,000 strong women's march all wearing " pussy hats ".

    "The Pussy Revolution"

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 3:15:31 PM | 32
    16

    Purple is a reminder of the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed, the Purple State Apparatchik that holds the reins of power, a 99.4% unappointed, unelected, civil and military unionized Purple Gog-Magog that just raised USArya's debt limit by $10 TRILLION, and uses Red-Blue Tinfoil the way the Jesuits and Jews always have since they first rose to power in 1917. That 100 Centeniary is Trump, the Orange Jesuit with the Jesuit-Jew SCOTUS at his Right Hand, Global Business Mafias at his Left Hand, and poodled Congress at his feet.

    We are all Purple Zeks now.

    Clueless Joe | Jan 15, 2017 3:16:19 PM | 33
    Well, thing is, in the US, the bulk of people with guns, knowing how to use them, and ready to use them, is on Trump's side, when it was more split on Ukraine, Syria or Libya. So this leaves the US Army to do most of the fighting on Clinton's (or the Borg's) behalf. Not sure the troopers would do it gladly. I mean, the Civil War traumatized the US way more than even WWII.
    At this point, one has to wonder if for such a coup to succeed, a cause uniting the people wouldn't be required, like, say, a significant foreign war that would need the support of US people coming together, which would both unite it to the point of reducing the will of NRA people to resist the takeover, and which would focus the attention somewhere else. Having some hot war on Russian border could maybe do the trick.
    Though in such a case, the Borg better make it work inside the US, because the military would be quite busy in Europe, so if Trump supporters still took arms to protest the coup, it just couldn't deal with all threats.
    Very speculative, of course. I still think they don't plan that well and will do a half-assed job that will backfire, and will try to undermine Trump in the long run rather than trying to take him down right now.

    Harry | Jan 15, 2017 3:18:10 PM | 34
    @ Denis | 25

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"

    Steele requested permission of high ranking officials to go through with this report and he got the green light. Also he has very influential friends in MI6 and was involved in MAJOR propaganda campaigns before, like Litvinenko's.

    Therefore it wasnt a "solo" campaign, and UK will have to do serious mea culpas to fix the relationship with Trump.

    Louis Proyect | Jan 15, 2017 3:21:56 PM | 35
    This is really funny stuff. A government that festooned with Goldman-Sachs bankers has to worry about being toppled in a coup?

    fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?

    s | Jan 15, 2017 3:26:39 PM | 37
    "So what happens after some 'Trump supporter' on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?"

    Trump has already made his own funeral arrangements: Pence is the gravedigger, not the media or color conspiracies. A massacre of protesters against Trump would just make Trumpists horny. If Trump really pisses of enough of his peers in the owner class, their minions will impeach him. Hell, picking Pence was like Trump handing in an undated resignation letter, just to set their minds at ease.

    "What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing 'massacre' was a 'Russian plot'?"

    If the police massacre protesters, then no conservative will believe it was a Russian plot. If a nobody massacres protesters, and the CIA etc. say it was a Russian plot, then Trump will get shirty with Putin. But then the whole point of this campaign is to force his hand on Russia policy, not this BS about a color revolution. If the CIA accuse the dead protesters of being part of a Russian plot, then and only then is when you'll know they're getting serious (about either an immediate war with Russia or forcing Trump to step down.)

    Gross misstatements in the OP? 1) Clinton was not the main driver of foreign policy for the conclusive reason no Secretary of State has been the main driver in foreign policy since John Foster Dulles. And that was only because Eisenhower was a general who treated his cabinet like a military staff. 2) Trump did not win the vote at all, he won the Electoral College, which isn't "fair and square," as everybody knew since the controversies over the actual Electoral College votes during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers themselves. The Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it. There is a point when there's being stupid, and there's being a liar. Neither is a good place to be.

    When Trump tries to take Putin to the cleaners, which is what he means when talks about making a deal with Russia, either Putin crawls (my guess, but I'm not a mind reader, but Putin's got no principles, no plan and very little power,) or he signs on to the cold (or surface of the sun hot) war with China. At this point, these people are just bad cop to Trump's good cop. His tinpot Orthodox God had better help Putin if he thinks these anybody in this government is anything but an enemy.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 3:28:49 PM | 38
    Louis 'the clown' Proyect passes gas @35.

    Very funny indeed.

    s | Jan 15, 2017 3:40:50 PM | 39
    PS 1) Forgot to mention the belief that an official from the previous administration isn't allowed to criticize Trump really betrays something uncomfortably close to servility. Trump's a twitter-pated nitwit. He knew Godwin's Law means you lose if you mention Nazis. Turning Brennan's perfectly normal use of Trump's internet gaffe into a threat on Trump's life and/or the nation itself? Why not rant about the threat to motherhood and apple pie, too?

    2) Curtis@11 tells us Trumpery looks up to Robert E. Lee, a traitor and a slaver (literally, seizing blacks on the Gettysburg campaign as slaves,) and a wretched buffoon like Acton. So much the worse for Trumpists!

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 3:53:40 PM | 40
    ...
    So what happens after some "Trump supporter" on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?
    What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing "massacre" was a "Russian plot"?
    b.

    Trump came into this election with his eyes wide open.
    During the campaign he once said "I know things most people don't know."

    If one of the things Trump knows is that CIA color revolutions are started by enhancing Gene Sharp's Non-violent Protest playbook with guns, then he'll have that possibility covered most likely by the 200 military officers whom he claims have offered their support for a Trump Presidency.

    I find it bizarre that the name Chuck Hagel (the man who never lies) hasn't been mentioned at all since campaigning began.

    DavidKNZ | Jan 15, 2017 4:03:26 PM | 41
    Behind these toxic allegations are deadly alligators.
    They just don't like having their swamp drained
    :-)

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 4:04:45 PM | 42
    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 3:53:40 PM | 40

    Apologies for CIA typo. It should read State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions.

    VietnamVet | Jan 15, 2017 4:13:15 PM | 43
    The only mass movement is the one that elected Donald Trump stop the depredation of mid-America. The intelligence community coup attempt is strictly inside the Beltway. The death knell of the Democratic Party is their support of a war with Russia to hide their incompetence and corruption. We are watching one gang of oligarchs fight another for control of the pirate plunder; globalists verses nationalists. Government by and for the people was flushed down the toilet in 2000. The USA is not a sovereign state, it is an Empire in decline. If Mike Pence takes the reins, the purple Clinton/Obama/Bush corporate globalists won.

    Perimetr | Jan 15, 2017 4:43:20 PM | 44
    Russian Foreign Ministry: "Obama Still Has A Few Days Left To Destroy The World"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/russian-foreign-ministry-obama-administration-stil-has-few-days-left-destroy-world

    Michael McNulty | Jan 15, 2017 4:48:30 PM | 45
    The main difference between Hitler and today's America is Hitler built a police state at home to take war abroad while the US took war abroad to build a police state at home. The results will be the same; a fearful, murderous Nazism of "enemies" abroad and "undesirables" and at home.

    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 5:00:25 PM | 46
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?
    Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36

    Ever heard of Mike Pompeo?

    likklemore | Jan 15, 2017 5:14:39 PM | 47
    @ s 37
    1) Clinton was not the main driver of foreign policy for the conclusive reason no Secretary of State has been the main driver in foreign policy since John Foster Dulles. And that was only because Eisenhower was a general who treated his cabinet like a military staff. 2) Trump did not win the vote at all, he won the Electoral College, which isn't "fair and square," as everybody knew since the controversies over the actual Electoral College votes during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers themselves. The Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it. There is a point when there's being stupid, and there's being a liar. Neither is a good place to be.

    1. Reminder since you may have missed the leaked emails and important events during Hillary Clinton's tenure as SoS: the force behind the push in Lybia

    (a) Lybia - Get the gold
    (b) "we came, we saw, he died." Cackles.
    (c) Ditto the lies surrounding Stevens – the arms smuggling to AQ in Syria

    2. Suggest some read up on the Constitution and structure of the Republic of The United States of America. The Electoral College is designed to balance small states vs large states; the same rationale for the Senate.
    3. On Election day, November 8, the voters selected the Electors to the Electoral College who then vote for the President and VP. Smart presidential candidates craft their campaign with the Electoral College's target, 270 votes. MSM polls showing Clinton having a 95% chance of winning, (Newsweek Madame President) so she disappeared during the last three weeks in October.
    4. Newsflash: Clinton's so-called national popular vote win by "millions" is a fraud. Millions of illegals voted in California, placing the so-called popular vote in her column. Never mind California. How about Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan's recount that was aborted? One example; a sealed ballot box had Clinton with 306 votes and when opened, the count was only 50. Other ballot boxes had similar anomalies.
    5. Trump won by a landslide; where it counts ---in the Counties --- 302 votes in the Electoral College for the final count.


    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    The Electoral College is unfair! Then so is the make-up of the Senate: regardless of population the 50 states x 2 senators each = 100. Get over it.
    Trump may be a skillful deal-maker but he won't be taking Putin to the Cleaners. Ask Rex Tillerson.

    juliania | Jan 15, 2017 5:24:46 PM | 48
    jayc@22:

    ". . . the degree to which the message has actually been internalized by the public-at-large may be far less than it may appear. . ."

    This sensible comment goes to the 'polls' taken - haven't we recently seen the worth of polls? These are the same polls that gave us Hillary as a sure bet.

    You have to have a trusting public somewhat unaware of the forces in play to work a color revolution, and even the one in Ukraine has not worked. People will know, enough people will know, what is happening. If it's tried there will most assuredly be support for anything Trump and his followers may do in response. There's no slam dunk here, CIA We don't love you; we don't even trust you. Try something at your own peril.

    If Americans want anything at this point, they do want an orderly change of government. They may not have high hopes for the incoming crowd but they don't want chaos. They do not want to be the next Syria. And even if they don't know precisely who's doing what in the days before the inauguration, they'll be suspicious of anyone who tries to start something.

    When 9/11 events were underway, remember the passengers on the plane in Pennsylvania? There'll be good citizens ready to put out any fire even at the cost of their own lives; I'm betting on them.

    karlof1 | Jan 15, 2017 5:34:54 PM | 49
    Hmmm.... The intrigue is fascinating!! BUT! We must recall the primary goal/motivation for the Deep State's Outlaw US Empire since 1990 has been to acquire Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people, to which it's had fairly solid success--except with Russia, China and their few allies, the numbers of which are growing slowly. It's said by Putin and Xi that there's no ideological battle akin to the Cold War, but I don't think that's true: Both Putin, Xi, and their nation's economic plans for Eurasian integration are based on Win/Win aims for all involved, whereas the stated ideological goal of the Outlaw US Empire is stated above--enslaving the Hydra (Hydra being the global masses). The current "strategy" was to attack both Russia and China simultaneously, with an emphasis on Russia; Trump and his crew, however, are proposing a different approach based on the tried and true Divide and Conquer concept that's worked so well to now, but is no longer effective thanks to Neoliberalcon behavior allowing an understanding--and thus countermoves--to be gained of their modus. Clearly, Neoliberalcons are miffed that the ball is being taken from them regarding Imperial policy--note there's very little (elite) bickering about what the Republican controlled congress is doing to domestic policy, where most Mass Resistance to Trump/Congress is occurring. From a domestic POV, it seems like Trump's most likely to alienate those who thought he'd improve their standing because of his unwillingness to confront the Republican Congress's destruction of critical social and ecological programs.

    Trump's election outcome seems to mimic what was predicted to occur if a Third Party won and had to confront an antithetical congress having its own plans/policies to implement, adding the assumption that the Deep State would oppose such a Party as a matter-of-course, doing everything it could to delegitimize the incoming administration. If a Color Revolution's planned, then I'd expect to see a big rise in Tea Party activity, as most Soros-sponsored US-ngos are already at odds with Congress, not Trump's as yet unknown Imperial policy direction.

    Banger | Jan 15, 2017 5:54:56 PM | 50
    We are seeing some deep divisions not just within the State but in the public. We are now seeing the healthy growth of "alternative" Narratives which are far more compelling and based more on objective truth than the mainstream Narratives which means, over the long haul, they should win out unless those Narratives are rigorously suppressed. The only chance the authorities have to suppress these competing points of view and a lurch towards reality is to create an external enemy. Now we see the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans joining forces with the National Security State and the mainstream media to create the utterly fictional Russian "threat" in the same way they've created all the phony threats of the past. Will it work? I don't know--what I do know is that the majority of the population "wants" to believe in scapegoats and an enemy because it radically simplifies life and allows people to join together in virtual "two minutes of hate." This kind of thing usually works when you have "progressvies" and "leftists" joining in along with the usual warmongers in howling for blood. What I call the "Stasi left" is now showing itself for the CIA minions (people don't really know how "liberal" most of the CIA actually is) they are and perhaps have been or at least wannabe.

    I had for some time wanted to dissociate myself from the left but am now ready to do so not because I'm no longer on the left but because "the left" seem no longer to be on the left. I know it's time to move away from those divisions which are mainly just part of the mind-control regime we've been under since 1917. We have to choose. Continue to research what is the truth as best we can or join in the tribal wars that may well end in mutual destruction and certainly a possible civil war.

    I know Trump is attempting to placate those who might murder him--we'll see how it works. From where I sit it seems unlikely that Trump will put a dent in the ongoing Imperial project and the criminals it harbors.

    ALberto | Jan 15, 2017 5:58:03 PM | 51
    @47

    "Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it."

    Electoral College = United States

    Popular Vote = United State

    12th Amendment so simple a preteen can grasp its main thrust.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 5:59:46 PM | 52
    You forgot to include the green revolution in Iran instigated by CIA and Mossad operatives with the help of Jundallah and MEK. Since it could be attempted again during Trump's Presidency; let's not sweep it under the rug and out of the pages of infamous recent history. Although, I believe Trump and his cabal will take more hostile and aggressive measures against Iran than instigating a color revolution.

    That being said; permit me to change the title to: Planting the Bad Seed. I'm not sure if you did this intentionally or not, but the pen is a mighty sword that you use skilfully therefore I should assume it was deliberate.

    I don't think I've yet read such artful, crafty and not to overuse, Machiavellian false equivalency as I just did now with this piece first introducing it with an outline of nefarious machinations against Trump, followed by a synopsis of fake revolutions to get to the grain. So in other words you're saying that the CIA or present state enemies of Trump would use the unsuspecting, and I'm not being facetious-innocent- leftist masses for their end. This is not to say that Neolibs are not lurking in there to sabotage this Presidency exploiting legitimate and justified dissent and dissenters as tools to use against Trump.

    Moreover, the only one doing the sabotaging here ; no, I won't go that far. Maybe you'll re-evaluate how this piece comes off, so let me give you the benefit of doubt while I still condemn it and its author who has yet to reconsider and join the good fight instead. If there are nefarious machinations in the works to sabotage Trump, then you are similarly busy working the Trump side with equally nefarious propaganda by raising a conspiracy spectre intended as an influence manoeuvre to crush all LEGITIMATE DISSENT against Trump that includes, more importantly, dissent against the cabal that brought him to power, by smearing such dissenters with the same brush you're using against those who would use them. Therefore in my opinion you are just as exploitive as Trump, his enemies and the deep state cabal that surrounds him and that he fully, absolutely represents.

    So let's say Chipnik is right, that at some point in time, which may not be during the inauguration, the Trump fascist squad aggressively lean on protesters or as Chip writes, start shooting into the crowd. Your angle is to first plant the seed, that it won't necessarily be the Trump squad that is or would be responsible for such a heinous act, but other forces meant to make Trump look like the fascist; never mind, that this is who he REALly is.

    So you're trying to delegitimize the revolution before it even starts. This is pretty devious; if not ugly; I'm being kind. As a matter of fact, it feels kind of sinister to suppress with twisted assumption, before it even gets started, the inevitable uprising you know Trump will ignite with his repressive regime. Is this not resorting to goebbel hasbara for an end you imagine is justified; a highly questionable, even wicked means to what YOU imagine will be a beneficial end like perhaps détente with Russia? What an intangible, sorry excuse that would be to extinguish real and enduring change BY THE PEOPLE that might end up benefitting your cause as well.

    What the hell are you trying to pull with this piece? Are you trying to crush growing and overwhelming legitimate dissent by planting a conspiracy theory that whatever revolution Trump accelerates with his wrongful actions will be illegitimate and fraudulent because it isn't inspired by justified dissent against him or better yet against the system that spawned Trump , but instigated by nefarious forces conspiring to overthrow him?

    Let me tell you something; the Revolution has been a long time simmering BEFORE Trump appeared on the political scene. If Trump is the accelerant that will finally make it explode then that's too bad for your own 'justified' goal and Trump for continuing the deep state subornation and subversion of democracy! Your goal (if honourable) should regrettably be the necessary, hopefully, temporary casualty of the rebellion against Trump's dangerous deception to quote an Engdahl phrase that best describes him.

    Trump is an asterisk in the reasons for the Revolution that should have happened after 9/11; and that you would try to delegitimize it this way planting a seed that might spread like poison to kill it, is reprehensible. The Revolution, my friend, won't and shouldn't be strictly limited to Trump. The Revolution will be about the entire two-faced monopoly and the evil forces sustained by this monopoly that brought Trump to power and repeatedly suborn leadership and subvert the people's power. People deserve to have this long-awaited Revolution, and if you, with your grain of conspiracy, propagate a theory that delegitimizes this Revolution making it only about a coup against Trump, then you are no better than the cabal you pretend to expose.

    Propaganda works. Then stop using it to kill the Revolution.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:20:42 PM | 53
    @24 chipnik

    'Mass shootings' is a bit of a specious reach.

    True, but sarcastically, symbolically or not, you, yourself, did reference there would be 'shootings on crowds after Trump assumes office' in several previous posts.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:27 PM | 54
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?
    Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36

    Ever heard of Mike Pompeo?

    Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 5:00:25 PM | 46

    Yeah. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

    Circe, because there can only be one revolution at a time, Soros is Calvinistically the most righteous and therefore has priority? Get over this liberal conceit of righteous pitched battle. In the meantime, talk to my filter.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:55 PM | 55

    Circe, because there can only be one revolution at a time, Soros is Calvinistically the most righteous and therefore has priority? Get over this liberal conceit of righteous pitched battle. In the meantime, talk to my filter.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:55 PM | 55

    Trump should order further investigation on Hillary and send her to jail where she belongs.
    No one plays with Donald Trump without bearing consequences

    Posted by: virgile | Jan 15, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56

    Trump should order further investigation on Hillary and send her to jail where she belongs.
    No one plays with Donald Trump without bearing consequences

    Posted by: virgile | Jan 15, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56

    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 6:39:27 PM | 57
    Yeah. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
    Posted by: Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:27 PM | 54

    Meet the new boss: Circe, the man who kwows the past and the future.

    terry | Jan 15, 2017 6:49:43 PM | 58
    Looks like there is going to be a big turnout . I think that these people had mentioned that they would put themselves in between any protesters of Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1qlkIXja6U

    x | Jan 15, 2017 6:51:01 PM | 59
    ZH reports:

    "... CIA Director Brennan Warns Trump To "Watch What He Says"

    "There is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for 'leaking' information... "

    So the head of the Ministry for Dis-Information complains that there is 'no basis' (aka 'no facts') for this allegation. When did lack of evidence ever bother the CIA?

    And Brennan does not like comparison by his new boss (who's not like the old boss):

    "What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany," Brennan said. "I do take great umbrage at that."

    This is the gangster-in-chief running the Afghan opium trade and any number of odious regime change programs that have killed and mained tens of millions now demanding 'evidence' when the finger is pointed his way.

    "Hypocrite" is the word for this type of odious person. And Trump had better watch his back. These types are worse than nazi Germans.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/scathing-attack-cia-director-brennan-warns-trump-watch-what-he-says

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 7:06:46 PM | 60
    @55

    Soros can kiss my ass; and Trump can kiss his.

    Mina | Jan 15, 2017 7:08:00 PM | 61
    If you watch Podesta speech on the n7ght of the election wgen he called the few remaining ppl in the room to go to sleep and wait for more in the morning it seems pretty clear they were already planning. Let s hope for some significant leaks.

    dh | Jan 15, 2017 7:14:29 PM | 62
    Trump made some interesting comments in an interview with the Times today. They seem to be aimed at disaffected Europeans and there are lots of those these days.

    "Merkel made a catastrophic mistake (letting a million refugees in)"

    "Countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity,"

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38632485

    jfl | Jan 15, 2017 7:21:16 PM | 63
    @10 unnamed, 'In 5 days he will hold the reins of power'

    that's my expectation. despite the cinamatography @14 john

    @15 yet another unnamed, 'These people are nuts'

    i certainly hope you're right! that brennan and the rest are immediately shown the door and the deconstruction of the vile, 'unamerican' cia begins on saturday, in the pale afternoon.

    @19 ya unnamed, '... Hillary didnt generate enough votes ...'

    hillary won the popular vote ... if the elctronic tally system is to be believed. not

    @22 jayc, 'The Russia/Trump freak-out is localized in the Beltway establishment, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media ...'

    that's my feeling too. i think this is a media tempest in a media teapot. the good news is they are alienating ordinary americans, just as their choice of hillary for empress did. i hope the tnc msm go down along with republicrat/demoblican party ... and the vile cia.

    @23 likklemore, 'You would think Clapper's statement would be covered by MSM, No?'

    no. it's a perfunctory cover-the-ass-of-the-nsa/cia-combine statement. clapper put the more than 'dodgy dossier' in the obama/trump briefing in order for it to be leaked. now he's decrying others' - fully intended - use of his more than dodgy inclusion. the tnc msm know what he's done and what he's doing and are acting accordingly. his statement is a footnote for the history books.

    @35 lp, 'This is really funny stuff. A government that festooned with Goldman-Sachs bankers has to worry about being toppled in a coup?'

    even a blind pig can smell the acorns ... or g-sax truffles?

    @36 ff, 'Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles'

    and he'd better. and he'd better finish the job: kill the cia. or the cia will certainly kill him. one way or another.

    @37, @39 s

    with the exception of your assessment of russia and china and their leadership - and your nasty, supercilious tone - i agree, think most of what you say is about right. why should anyone care what i think?

    @42 hw, 'State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions'

    yeah, but now State is a condominium of the cia/pentagon. mostly the cia.

    @45 mm, 'the difference between Hitler and today's America is Hitler built a police state at home to take war abroad while the US took war abroad to build a police state at home'

    well put.

    @47 likkelmore, 'The Electoral College is designed to balance small states vs large states; the same rationale for the Senate.'

    The Electoral College was designed to balance slave states vs non-slave states; the same rationale for the Senate.

    'so is [was] the make-up of the Senate'

    check.

    @48 juliana, 'If Americans want anything at this point, they do want an orderly change of government'

    i think that's the word.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:28:50 PM | 64
    juliania @48:
    haven't we recently seen the worth of polls?
    The're sinister when used to cement the reality that the propaganda is meant to create. In which case, most Americans believe .... could well be reworded as: most of your fellow citizens have accepted our disinformation - you should too!

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    karlof1 @49:

    Divide and Conquer
    No doubt Russia and China are aware of this possible strategy. It leads to the question of whether it is better for our globally-linked human society that Russia integrate with the West or join with China as counterweight.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Banger @50:

    ... deep divisions not just within the State but in the public.
    Sadly, public divisions don't seem to mean much except when exploited by a powerful elite faction. Thus public divisions become a resource for elite maneuvering.

    Kudos: You were early in anticipating a leader like Trump who would exploit the discontent.

    Narratives which are far more compelling and based more on objective truth ...
    I think narratives that spin truth around accepted myths are most compelling (and what we see all-too-often).
    "moderate" Republicans
    I wouldn't call McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Company "moderates". William Banzai depicts them as American Jihadis!

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Circe @52

    WTF! b has previously spoken of the desireability of a real resistance to Trump, saying:

    Trump should and must be fought but that fight should be about important economic and social issues for which people care and of which there are plenty.... Every attempt to accuse Trump of this or that "Russia" outrage that has nothing to do with the average voter's life simply fails. These pseudo scandals waged within the "elite" media against him just makes him stronger.
    Please try to keep up.

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 7:37:59 PM | 65
    64

    To quote George Carlin, 'They (One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed) don't give a fuck about you! '

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:38:52 PM | 66
    x @59
    "Hypocrite" is the word for this type of odious person.
    No, the word is " sociopath " - a person with impaired conscience (aka "moral compass").

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 7:55:08 PM | 67
    @55

    Oh, and while I'll admit my conviction may come off as conceit; you, OTOH, are at the height of arrogant cynicism masking who knows what ideological Z-aberration known for its hubris.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 7:59:28 PM | 68
    @ b
    Bravo.

    Though we must not forget the same tactic used against Chavez in Venezuela, in ' The coup that failed, stillborn ? , or much more recently another unsuccessful rehash against Maduro.

    These are merely the newest, latest refined & distilled, incarnation of methods & technique, we have used against foreign governments since the 1800's!(two centuries of refinement). The latest methods are designed to maximize Plausible-Deniablility and maximize supposed credibility of the proxies, and create a foundation for continuing attempts should it not be successful (not - all or nothing), whilst always presenting Faux arguments/justifications in the latest 'methods', re Democracy, Rule of Law, Rights, Oppression, Dis=Enfranchised ... whilst launching a foreign State sponsored, instigated, financed, managed, resourced, Coup!

    From 1887 Samoa, 1893 Hawaii thru to 1953 Mossadegh (Iran), 1954 Guatemala, 1958 Lebanon, thru to 1973 Allende (Chile), 1991 Haiti and then thru to today.

    All our chickens have come home to roost. :(

    @ Posted by: Bob In Portland | Jan 15, 2017 1:08:57 PM | 5

    The CIA is not the 'entire' Deep State, nor is the CIA or the Deep State (think all aspects and scale and scope of GLADIO) the actual drivers/deciders. The CIA and other such entities 150 years before the CIA was legally born, are mercenaries acting upon the directions/instructions they receive , in actions such as these. YMMV

    mischi | Jan 15, 2017 8:02:51 PM | 69
    dh, not only did he say that Merkel had made a big mistake, Trump also told Bild that the EU was built to give the Germans primacy in Europe and for the EU to give the US a trading rival. He applauded Brexit, saying that everyone wanted to keep their identity and wanted a quick trading deal with the UK. Interesting times we live in.

    Peter AU | Jan 15, 2017 8:04:00 PM | 70
    The 9/11, WMD, MH17 crew are still out and about so it will be interesting to see what happens in the near future.
    I wouldn't like to be part of the cannon fodder brigade the US has moved to Russia's borders. They are starting to look like sacraficial goats for the good cause of geo-politics at this stage.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 8:11:40 PM | 71
    Color Revolutions are diplomacy by other means? If so, looking back a decade in Iran is just a start.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG06Ak03.html
    Perhaps review of centuries is needed.
    England 1689 France 1789 1989 USSR...

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:12:56 PM | 72
    @ Posted by: Denis | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:15 PM | 25

    You jest assuredly ... who controls the ' Sole Remaining Superpower ', which spends more on its Military, let alone Intelligence/Proxy/NGO entities/forces, than the next largest 13 nations COMBINED, in a domestic US counter-election Coup is, ... not of significance ... everything re our rapacious actions on the people of Terra may be affected by these events, let alone domestically, for good of bad, or not.

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"
    again, given the well documented & corroborated, FACTS, throughout these threads, you jest, yes ?

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 8:19:49 PM | 73
    Russia is still dominated by the Oligarchs- and who are they? Dual nationals of the same Little Horn as the dual nationals that run USA. And Iran. And China and Trump.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:21:38 PM | 74
    The only REAL, committed, passionate, mass united group of citizens is the 'Bag-of-Depplorables', most of the assets being burnt up in this Psyop campaign are 'False' or long ago 'Bought & Paid for'.

    Will those of the US citizenry who identify with or are misled/deceived by 'Identity Politics' and 'Fake Left' 'R2P', etc narratives be prepared to step up and put it all, 'On the Line'? Somewhat doubt it.

    Given what they openly say in comments and the twitts, etc, one doubts they, the 'Deplorables' who won the election for the Trumpster, will stand by passively should this continue to escalate beyond the 20th. No doubt at all.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 75
    @64

    Geez, I have to break my rule with you; this one time, 'coz you probably didn't read my comment (56) in response to the post you quote 'b' from where I compared him to Lt. Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, (decent guy; but thoroughly misdirecting his genius to assisting the enemy). Here is the excerpt where I address that part of his post you quoted.:

    At times reading this; I thought I had entered the twilight zone of Breitbart, and only when I got to this disclaimer, was relieved to see that there is still a glimmer of hope that you will return to the side fighting the good fight.

    But the war against Trump is not over. In my view Trump should and must be fought [no kidding!] but that fight should be about important economic and social issues for which people care and of which there are plenty. Trump has his own cabal, libertarian billionaires like the Koch brothers, several generals in his cabinet and arch Zionists like Adelson. But that cabal's henchmen are not yet installed throughout the government. It is important to hinder such infestation.

    Yes, I do recognize a glimmer of hope, understated, but promising. You might yet blow up that bridge you've magnificently engineered, but I'd like to make these adjustments: the fight will and should not be restricted to economic and social issues. Do you really believe that the intended repression and exploitation will be limited to the U.S. alone???

    And allow me to correct this sentence by adding my two cents in square parenthesis:

    But that cabal's henchmen are not yet [ALL] installed throughout the government.

    Have you looked at his cabinet and entourage lately?

    Therefore, it is YOU, jr, that failed to keep up. Don't try to bait me; I'm so bored with your spin.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:28 PM | 76
    @ Posted by: VietnamVet | Jan 15, 2017 4:13:15 PM | 43

    Got it in one, VietnamVet.

    Interesting also is how the false narratives/dissembling is strong and responsive, in this thread, from particular posters, so quickly and in great quantity ...

    The simple question is: If Trump is not perceived as the greatest threat in at least ~71 years to the Military-Industrial-Corporate-Complex, and, more importantly their ultimate owners, the puppet-masters behind the curtain, the 0.01% owners thereof. Hence, why are we seeing these very events unfurl before our very eyes ?

    This is no charade or deceptive play to distract, amuse or entertain. That is bullshit.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:43:01 PM | 77
    @73

    Add UK and maybe France, Canada and Australia to the list and leave Iran and China out. They haven't been Z-infested yet; except maybe with spies and operatives.

    Kalen | Jan 15, 2017 8:43:48 PM | 78
    In every country under so called color revolution the underlying theme was imminent economic collapse that elites not only were unable to prevent but even actively pursuited and used the phony revolution to cover up their own theft and introduction global banking thieves into local economy under exigency of crisis, by selling land and state monopolies.
    If b is right preplaned economic crisis in the US is about to happen and a scape goat is about to be sworn in.
    That is the position of many independent economists recognizing that FED is covering up already ongoing depression that needs to be blamed on somebody but the establishment.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:46:16 PM | 79
    Posted by: Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 75

    Lt. Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, (decent guy; but thoroughly misdirecting his genius to assisting the enemy)

    An entirely false, fantasy, fiction, perpetrated in a movie FICTION!

    Veterans were and still are incensed. Let alone those who survived the industrialized torments/tortures, forced labor, starvation, neglect/disease and Death Marches, as well as their families who struggle with those survivors, to this very day .

    And it is used as a reference, for support ?! WTF! Have you ever personally met any of the survivors, and talked with them ?! A few still endure, many were only 17-20 at the time ...

    Have you no decency left, to try that one on, none at all ?

    Words fail me.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:51:39 PM | 80
    @71

    There was the real Revolution in Iran deposing the Shah and then there was an attempt at a fake one orchestrated by CIA and Mossad; the green revolution.

    Just want to emphasis that I was referring to the later fake one in my own post @52 above.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:58:46 PM | 81
    @ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:38:52 PM | 66

    Sociopaths & psychopaths, sometimes both, in dedicated service to their Patrons, the ultimate Psychopathic Sociopaths, the soulless, inhuman, rapacious, 'Old Grey Men', of the 0.01%.

    The 0.01% who steered and enabled, incrementally, their tools, such as the NSA (created by Presidential Executive Order, Not thru an Act of Legislation), to ' Collect it all/Process it all '.

    Which is merely a reflection of the 0.01%s desires ... re Terra and all that is on it and populate it.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:19:38 PM | 82
    @Circe

    Well, I stand corrected! Your vitriol wasn't a lapse, it was vomiting on our host.

    You have yet to suggest anything constructive.

    Supporting Obama-Hillary's Democratic Party against Trump is a NON-STARTER. The Democratic Party has proven to be thoroughly corrupt, and is more 'Zionist' than you care to admit (because that is adverse to your mission) .

    I think most independent thinkers have decided that a better starting point for change is Trump's in-your-face MAGA tyranny because the MSM-fueled globalist stab-you-in-the-back tyranny is more dangerous. The sheep are too willing to sleepwalk into the latter.

    So we CHEER when Trump puts down MSM because they are a tool that is used against the people, but you GROAN because he's gaining ground.

    Its clear that you are not here to be constructive. Your mission is to De-legitimize Trump.

    guest77 | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:15 PM | 83
    Glad to see Louis Proyect still comes around like a little mouse, pooping in the corner and scurrying away.

    P Walker | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:33 PM | 84
    likklemore@47

    And where are the charges from the DoJ from all this illegal voting? Republicans have been screaming out this "problem" for sixteen years and yet can never offer up such evidence. How many cases were brought up during the Bush years? This is one of those far-right fake news stories like the Vince Foster murder or Pizzagate. There's as much evidence of this electoral fraud as there is of Russian hacking of the election.

    You get "insiders" speaking about things like same-day no-ID registrations allowing people to vote. They're being very, very deceptive. These people get provisional ballots, which basically are not ever counted in just about every state that has them. Same with absentee ballots. The problem with absentee ballots is that they so easily disqualified over trivialities (i.e., stray pencil marks) and voters are left with this idea that their vote was counted. Why is there an explosion in absentee ballots? Because minority communities, the same communities that have their names purged from voting roles by GOP state governments, not to mention reduce machines for voting day and limit open hours, but absentee ballot voters think that it's better to send in absentee votes than wait in crazy lines on voting day.

    Democrats lost because they couldn't muster the vote from the plurality and conservatives ALWAYS come out to vote; they are the only reliable voting group out there. That's why the win Congress and at the state level. They win because their opposition are a bunch of out-of-touch elitist morons more concerned about get the "firsts". The first woman president, the first black president, the first hispanic senator, and so on and that is purely a reflection on the Democratic Party establishment's cosmopolitan champagne socialism obsession. They *are* out of touch which is why 50% of the population no longer votes. There's no point voting Democrat anymore.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:48 PM | 85
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:19:38 PM | 82

    No! Please, Say it is not so ? ;)

    And he/she ... is not alone ...

    Peace.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 9:23:14 PM | 86
    @79

    For crying out loud! I wasn't making any statement on whether or not the film fictionalized the actual events. I was using that character's role in the film to make an analogy here. Now go lecture and scream at someone else for a change.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:24:23 PM | 87
    Outraged @81

    I would think "sociopath!" every time Hillary spoke of "making tough choices".

    s | Jan 15, 2017 9:45:25 PM | 88
    likklemore@47 Illegals voting by the millions, like the hint about blacks somehow rigging the voting in urban areas, really is nothing but race baiting. OF course you talk about the Republic, that's practically a certificate of mad dog reaction. No, one man one vote is equal, the Electoral College is not. Even worse for you, if you really want to go the inequality route, you're the one who is inferior, being someone who upholds the equality of states rather than the equality of people, and mindlessly repeat lame slanders about the dark hordes somehow cheating at the polls and deranged irrelevancies instead of arguments. I suggest you more than most benefit from the proposition that all should have equal rights, because if they had to earn them, you lose.

    And lest I forget, your lame unthinking babble. You think the Senate is fair and square? No, you don't. When it's called the UN General Assembly, you know to the marrow of your bones it's not. Before you start ranting about what you think, you really need to have actual thoughts first.

    Trumpists are not the defenders of the people, Trumpists are the leaders in the attack on the people.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 9:54:26 PM | 89
    @ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:24:23 PM | 87

    One always saw and still, sees, the classical middle ages ' Grim Reaper' (image), standing and speaking in her stead, gesturing, enticingly ...

    Same same for Obama, Bush the Younger, too.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 9:55:33 PM | 90
    Circe: Even Islamic Revolution of 1979 was US backed. They wanted the Shah out. He had become "undependable" starting back around the time he threw his multi million $ celebration of 2500 Years of Persian Empire stuff- crowning himself Shah han Shah etc
    French were well aware he had cancer- they were treating him.
    Like the West has installed the MBros jihadis across the region to take down secular regimes of Gadaffi, Mubarak, Saddam, Assad. West had no hesitation installing an Islamic one to take out secular Shah. In Hegelian fashion, it began the Pike Program of "West vs Islam" phase of the Three World Wars. Or "Clash of Civilizations" or "War on Terror". The list above re: SNIPERS is interesting, as this motif also occurred in Tehran during the protests in Ferdowsi Sq w/ mysterious gunmen shooting into demos to incite the crowd.
    As for China not being dominated by the Zios? Afraid so. David Rockefeller had a vise grip via Chase Manhattan Bank very early on, and never forget that Trotsky "Lev Bronstein" was trained, equipped and prepped while living in in high style the Bronx on his way to Bolshevik Rev.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 9:59:06 PM | 91
    Just to be clear; I'll repeat this for the literacy challenged and bald-faced liar who wrote I support Democrats.:

    The Revolution will be about the entire two-faced monopoly and the evil forces sustained by this monopoly that brought Trump to power and repeatedly suborn leadership and subvert the people's power.

    Where does this indicate affiliation with one party or another??? Trump and Hillary belong to the two-faced monopoly. I am an equal opportunity dissenter; I don't give a rat's ass about either party or their chosen change messiah-con, Trump being the latest, that the deep-state cabal use to lure the servitude into believing they live in a democracy with equal opportunity for all and things are gonna change.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:33 PM | 92
    We're not buying it Circe. How many times do we need to tell you that? We've seen this before.

    Attacking Trump relentlessly while claiming that it is in the service of some super-high noble and unattainable rationale?

    What else ya got?

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:49 PM | 93
    @ Posted by: s | Jan 15, 2017 9:45:25 PM | 88

    Do you support the Constitution as it stands, the Laws of the United States, Federal & State or not ?

    Or only when it conveniently suits your argument/narrative/position ... regardless of facts ?

    This is why Intelligence Analysts (ultimately realists doing a job) for example, in the main, and most of the Military and a surprising number of citizens, are staying out of it, neutral, and incrementally ever so slowly pushing back against the screed and leaning towards the new POTUS/Administration. Why ?

    But, hey, he won the election, she lost! What is going on here ?

    Generations of belief in unreal myths re Democracy, etc, are, in effect, working against the Coup plotters Psyop campaign narrative.

    Denis | Jan 15, 2017 10:14:12 PM | 94
    Harry | Jan 15, 2017 3:18:10 PM | 34
    Steele requested permission of high ranking officials to go through with this report and he got the green light. Also he has very influential friends in MI6 and was involved in MAJOR propaganda campaigns before, like Litvinenko's.

    Sorry, Harry, but I can't decipher the above. Having a link to your source[s] might help.

    For instance, what do you mean by Steele got "permission" from "high ranking officials"?? Even if the assertion is factual, "high ranking officials" does not necessarily mean MI6. Officials where? US, UK, Ru ??? And having friends in MI6 has nothing to do with your assertion that Steele "requested permission" to do a dirty like this one.

    Let's presume you have a source that says Steele got "permission" from MI6. Do you see the implications of that? The report was initially commissioned by an as yet unidentified Republican candidate. But that person dropped out before the investigation really got started. So Steele shopped the project to Hillary's bunch of bums. And so what you are saying is that Steele went to some "high ranking official" I presume you mean in the UK, and further, within the context of the comment, you mean MI6 – and from that high ranking MI6 person came a green-light for Steele to do a hit-piece on a US presidential candidate. IOW, you are accusing the UK in precisely the same way the MSM and Obama are accusing Russia/Putin.

    Accepted wisdom has it that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and yet I see no proof here of any sort. Please pass me a link to a reliable source that says Steele asked for and rec'd permission from MI6. That would be very hot.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:12:56 PM | 72

    You jest assuredly ... who controls the 'Sole Remaining Superpower', which spends more on its Military, let alone Intelligence/Proxy/NGO entities/forces, than the next largest 13 nations COMBINED, in a domestic US counter-election Coup is, ... not of significance ... everything re our rapacious actions on the people of Terra may be affected by these events, let alone domestically, for good of bad, or not.

    I have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about. Is that "paragraph" supposed to be a response to my comment #25? Are we on the same page? Planet? What does the "Sole Remaining Superpower" have to do with any of this?

    To review: The topic is whether MI6 is eye-balls deep in the Steele Report. If it is, then calling it the "MI6 Report" makes sense. If not, then "MI6 Report" is a misleading misnomer and propaganda in its own right.

    again, given the well documented & corroborated, FACTS, throughout these threads, you jest, yes ?

    OK, that's better. I can understand that one. I noticed you capitalized "FACTS." Now we're talkin' the same language, dude.

    See my response to Harry, above. Same goes for you: Can you give me a link to a reliable source saying MI6 signed off on this attack on a US presidential candidate? Throw some FACTS my way. . .

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:15:27 PM | 95
    As long as the money flows, Democratic Party and sympathetic establishment operatives will try to derail Trump.

    At some point, a real resistance with some integrity will spring up once the Democratic Party and its lackeys have failed so miserably that they are a laughing stock.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 10:17:38 PM | 96
    Circe,
    Got it. Agree 100%. Until we take out the ventriloquists, we will be forever trapped in the fake left-right paradigm arguing over the Elite's puppet du jour- but never taking on the Deep State puppeteers. Seems we'd rather be manipulated by them, and persist in bickering w/ each other.

    Peter AU | Jan 15, 2017 10:19:57 PM | 97
    93 "Generations of belief in unreal myths re Democracy, etc, are, in effect, working against the Coup plotters Psyop campaign narrative."

    Spot on. The powers that be have to, over a very short period, try to turn this narrative around. It seems than now they will be impaled on their own democratic sword.

    Julian | Jan 15, 2017 10:25:23 PM | 98
    Hello Civil War!

    Although Pence-Clinton might be enough to mollify the population.

    This is exactly why Trump must go after the Clinton Foundation full throttle on January 20.

    There is no time to waste to neutralise this threat

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 10:32:46 PM | 99
    What else ya got?

    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:33 PM | 92

    Oh gee, I dunno...how about this?!

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/05/3b/50/053b50e784c7bfc634dfac7f574adb06.jpg

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 10:44:53 PM | 100
    @ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 4:04:45 PM | 42

    Apologies for CIA typo. It should read State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions.

    Respectfully, the CIA through the 'Local Station'(CIA), local Company technical/support sections & assets & agents, sources & proxies (NGOs/Associations/Union/Business elements), AND

    The State Department, through Diplomats/Officers and CIA under Official Cover(OC)(Diplomatic), also interacting with and managing the previous, though mostly focused on High level political, corporate entities/assets,

    ... simultaneously ... concurrently ... run the Coups and 'faux' revolutions/uprisings/'Arab Springs' ...

    To a varying lesser or greater degree there of, limited and/or competing co-operation/conflict.

    The Agency(CIA) and the State Department are not a monolithic entity ... there are common and partially overlapping interests and objectives, sometimes more, others less so ... yet they have never acted as one, as a 'Borg'.

    Phil Agee's published diary, to corroborate my brief explanation above in excruciating detail, is an accessible, open, unclassified insight re how this all actually works, for ant interested reader at MOA.

    Full text of 'Inside-the-Company-CIA-diary-Philip-aAgee.pdf" (Direct PDF doenload)

    There are no blanks in Philip Agee's Inside the Company: CIA Diary. This densely detailed expose names every CIA officer, every agent, every operation that ...

    ...

    Philip Agee discusses his experiences inside the CIA

    Philip Agee was a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who served in Latin America. After resigning from the CIA he lectured and wrote on the Agency's clandestine operations. His activities were not unnoticed. Ex-CIA Director and later President Bush the first called Agee "a traitor to our country." He is the author of Inside the Company: CIA Diary and On the Run. He died in Cuba in January 2008.

    Cheers.

    [Jan 18, 2017] Barack Obamas Real Legacy

    Jan 18, 2017 | viableopposition.blogspot.ca
    January 16, 2017

    Barack Obama's Real Legacy With Barack Obama's eight year stint in the Oval Office coming to an end and his persona (at least to those who don't really pay attention) as a "peacemaker", a recent analysis by Micah Zenko provides us with an interesting glimpse at his real foreign military approach.
    Before we get into the meat of this posting, let's look at a bit of history from 2009:

    Here is what the Nobel Committee had to say in October 2009 about the President who had been in office for less than ten months at that point in time:
    " The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
    Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
    Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
    For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. " (my bold)
    With that in mind, let's get back to Micah Zenko's analysis. Here is a table showing the number of U.S. bombs that were dropped in all of its current theatres of operation during 2016:

    The vast majority of bombs, 24,287 in total, were dropped during the anti-Islamic State Operation Inherent Resolve in both Syria and Iraq which received 2,963 and 2,941 airstrikes respectively. Of the 7,473 coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the United States was responsible for 5,904 or 79 percent of the total. Of the total of 30,743 bombs that were dropped by America's coalition partners, the United States dropped 24,287 or 79 percent of the total. When looking at the coalition bombing statistics on a national basis, in 2016, the United States conducted 67 percent of the airstrikes in Iraq and 96 percent of the airstrikes in Syria.
    Just in case you wondered, 2015 was also a bomb-dropping bonanza with a total of 23,144 bombs dropped including 22,110 in Iraq and Syria, the major beneficiaries of the Peace President's munificence as shown here:
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
    Apparently, Obama-style Nobel Peace Prize-winning international diplomacy included materiel raining from the sky on the innocent and guilty alike. Barack Obama has the distinction of being the only U.S. president to serve his entire eight year term in a state of war including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Syria. That is his legacy.

    [Jan 17, 2017] I'll sell myself out in a lot of different ways, but I will never sell myself out for a check from BuzzFeed

    Jan 17, 2017 | washingtonbabylon.com

    See, I'm not surprised that BuzzFeed would do something as shady and unethical as exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show. Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they admit cannot be verified.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire

    Jan 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick : January 16, 2017 at 07:08 PM

    Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 16, 2017 at 07:28 PM

    He's got a lot of options for catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart.

    It could well adversely affect their ability to feed themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.

    Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?

    *Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?

    libezkova -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    Dan,

    "Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."

    I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.

    That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance -- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being one.

    Jas11 -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 08:40 PM
    The market reaction to Trumps surprise win pretty clearly indicates that Hillary was not the finance industries choice.

    If your that far off on this one, I'd bet your just as far off on the 'deep state', whatever that means.

    libezkova -> Jas11... , January 16, 2017 at 09:08 PM
    I agree that it is strange that we have "Trump rally" and that this rally somewhat contradicts my hypothesis (although not much if we analyze S&P 500 by sector, for example oil industry definitely should rally, no question about it).

    You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole did much better that financial industry ETFs.

    People made a lot of money based on this recently.

    In any case, thank you for pointing this out.

    Ben Groves -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 09:35 PM
    Trumps ties to de Rothschild is where you don't get it. Oh, what did Donald do in 2008 that got him in bad trouble..............GS left the Morgans in 2009 and finally that truth is coming out of the closet. My guess when Democrats come back into the WH, GS gets hurt bad bad bad.
    sanjait -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 11:14 PM
    "You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole did much better that financial industry ETFs."

    This is the exact opposite of what actually happened.

    Seriously, go look it up. The finance sector has been *by far* the biggest beneficiary of Trump's election, in terms of stock price movement.

    Seriously, go look it up. XLF, for example, vs S&P 500.

    libezkova -> sanjait... , January 17, 2017 at 03:20 AM
    Yes, from election day I am deeply wrong. For 2017, I am right.
    Dan Kervick -> libezkova... , January 17, 2017 at 04:59 AM
    Trump will likely do something bold militarily, very early in his administration, most likely directed against ISIS and related jihadi groups. He will partner with Russia in doing this.

    If it goes reasonably well, Putin will be our new best buddy in the war on terror. The media herd, responding with the usual America at War televised info-frenzy, will ramble en masse away from it's current obsession with Russian spying and hacking, and will instead be covering the war theater with embedded journalists in flak jackets and helmets. They will be interviewing, among others, Russian pilots and generals, newly discovered to be likable and sturdy vodka-slugging war heroes, and our allies against terrorists, not diabolical villains. They will regale the public with background stories about heroic Russian deeds of the past, including how they stopped Hitler in the snows of western Russia. Nobody will care any more about the details of the 2016 election, and the sad dead-enders who can't let it go.

    On the other hand, if it goes poorly, this will give the public even more opportunity to indulge conspiracy theories about false flags, Russian and American "deep state" subversion, crony-capitalist bribery, election meddling and the illegitimacy of the 2016 outcome, Russian state television propaganda, left-wing fifth columnists and traitors, etc.

    So that's what I mean when I say that Trump's perceived legitimacy will depend on how things go.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    That sounds about right.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Get Paid Fighting Against Trump - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators

    Standard color revolution methods came to the USA...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators ..."
    "... Creation Date: 2016-12-02T00 ..."
    Jan 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    "Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators

    President-elect Donald Trump has complained about paid activists both before and after the 2016 presidential campaign, and as The Washington Times reports, he may have a point.

    Job ads running in more than 20 cities offer $2,500 per month for agitators to demonstrate at this week's presidential inauguration events.

    Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the "largest private grassroots support organization in the United States," posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking "operatives."

    "Get paid fighting against Trump!" says the ad.

    "We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why not do so with us!" the ad continues. "We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests."

    The job offers a monthly retainer of $2,500 plus "our standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least 6 events a year," as well as health, vision and dental insurance for full-time operatives.

    An example of one of the ads...

    Source: Tulsa.backpage.com

    While there have been "fake" ads in the past, as The Washington Times notes , if the Demand Protest ads are ruses, however, someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to sell the scam.

    The classifieds are running in at least two dozen cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and the company operates a slick website that includes contact information.

    A San Francisco phone number listed on the website was answered with a voice-mail message identifying the company by name. A request for comment left Monday evening was not immediately returned.

    The website, which says that the company has provided 1,817 operatives for 48 campaigns, promises "deniability," assuring clients that "we can ensure that all actions will appear genuine to media and public observers."

    "We are strategists mobilizing millennials across the globe with seeded audiences and desirable messages," says the website. "With absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements. When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact."

    A search by the Washington Times showed the Backpage.com ads also ran in Austin, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C.

    Bollixed -> Captain Chlamydia , Jan 17, 2017 7:36 PM

    Looks like they're full...

    https://www.demandprotest.com/recruitment/

    Dormouse -> Bollixed , Jan 17, 2017 7:44 PM

    Sounds like these groups could be easily infiltrated. Unless there's a useful-idiot IQ test before hand.

    evoila -> Dormouse , Jan 17, 2017 7:46 PM

    Can't these people be busted under RICO or something?

    Ignatius -> evoila , Jan 17, 2017 7:59 PM

    "Hey, dad, I got a job!"

    Malaka -> Dormouse , Jan 17, 2017 7:50 PM

    https://www.demandprotest.com/

    Domain Name: demandprotest.com Registry Domain ID: Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com Updated Date: 2017-01-04T00:00:00Z

    Creation Date: 2016-12-02T00:00:00Z

    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-12-02T00:00:00Z Registrar: Google Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 895 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466

    Domain Status: ok https://www.icann.org/epp#ok Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702 Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702 Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave Registrant City: Toronto Registrant State/Province: ON Registrant Postal Code: M4K 3K1 Registrant Country: CA Registrant Phone: +1.4165385487 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email:

    http://www.disruptj20.org/

    Prank Time! A Deplorable Favorite Pasttime!

    J S Bach -> WTFMOFO , Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM

    Trump needs to become his own George Soros (forgive the comparison, Donald) and fund his own "Get Paid For Fighting FOR Trump" campaign.

    bobbbny -> J S Bach , Jan 17, 2017 7:29 PM

    It appears thatDJT has never had to pay his supporters anything.

    nmewn -> bobbbny , Jan 17, 2017 7:38 PM

    lmao!!!..."All our operatives have access to our 24/7 phone help desk in addition to in-person support at events."

    HELLO? HELP! I GOT LOST I'M GETTING MY ASS MUGGED BY THREE BLACK DUDES ONLY FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE WH!

    "What? Who is this? How did you get this number? You sound like a racist Trump supporter!"

    (click)...lol.

    1980XLS d WTFMOFO •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM

    Fuck unemployment. Sue them for unjust termination after the Jig is Over.

    Mazzy d Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM

    For example:

    $17 per hour (makes it seem more real than a common number such as 15) for operative/protestor. Bus transportation will be provided. Paid half upon arrival at destination, half upon return.

    Bus will be located at address xxxx on yyyyy street (in front of local democrat councilman's house, or local university professor...be creative, make it hilarious).


    nmewn -> Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:28 PM

    I like the way you think...lol.

    Mazzy -> nmewn •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM

    Or just tell them to meet on the Quad/Square/Commons of the local college/university. Say that they will be meeting some professor of 'whatever', just look it up and come up with something plausible.

    Say that the bus will transport them to the nearest city or nearest larger city or the state capitol or whatever. Again, be plausible and convincing. Be creative and cross check before you post. I think we can pull this off.

    Think of the hilarity when a bunch of Hilary fems/mancucks or hundreds of angry Obama's sons show up and there's no payment.....

    MASTER OF UNIVERSE •Jan 17, 2017 7:33 PM

    Participatory Democracy has improved with monetary inducements for those that demonstrate, but when demonstrators make the same pay grade as the Police Officers hired by the State we will have equality of opportunity without disparity between protagonists & antagonists which would likely be better than what we see now.

    Fake Capitalism ain't worth minimum wage, motherfuckers!

    Sinnycool •Jan 17, 2017 8:20 PM

    Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the Trump camp was advertising for paid goons to prevent President-Elect-Hillary's inauguration.

    The media outcry would be heard on Mars and the National Guard if not the army would be deployed to detain and charge them.

    Trump himself would be at least threatened with the crime of aiding and abetting treason and his close associates would be placed in preventative detention for six months.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that having now de-legitimised Trump's election win, the "powers that be" are working up to openly carry out a public coup against the president-elect of their own country. As their attempts have been failing they have been escalating their methodology.

    They have become so used to doing it to other countries and their rationalisation is the same: what we define as evil can and will be destroyed using whatever means are necessary.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Obama was rising to power with remarkable backing from Wall Street and K Street election investors

    Jan 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    From the man who studied Obama before he started rising:

    "the early Obama phenomenon (dating back to his campaign for an open U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2003-04) was intimately tied in with the United States' corporate and financial ruling class. Obama was rising to power with remarkable backing from Wall Street and K Street election investors who were not in the business of promoting politicians who sought to challenge the nation's dominant domestic and imperial hierarchies and doctrines."
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_were_warned_about_barack_obama_--_by_obama_20170114

    Now 'liberal' commentators are celebrating Obama because he did his job...behaving like a Bush41 Republican and normalizing the damage that Bush43 did. Reply Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 07:39 AM Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 17, 2017 at 07:53 AM

    "John F. Kennedy, though popular in retrospect, had his agenda stalled in Congress when he was killed. "

    That will tend to stall your agenda.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 17, 2017 at 08:41 AM
    Kennedy's wanted to cut taxes on the rich and corporations and increase inequality.

    "President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963. Conservatives revolted at giving Kennedy a key legislative victory before the election of 1964."

    LBJ helped pass his agenda. Neoliberal!

    "The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

    reduced top marginal rate (on income over $100,000, roughly $770,000 in 2015 dollars, for individuals; and over $180,000; roughly $1,380,000 in 2015 dollars, for heads of households) from 91% to 70%

    reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%

    phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970)

    created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 17, 2017 at 08:42 AM
    starve the beast!

    [Jan 17, 2017] Obama Commutes Remaining Prison Sentence Of Chelsea Manning

    Jan 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Jan 17, 2017 4:25 PM Following urges by Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (who offered his own extradition in exchange) , President Obama has largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration, and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.

    Manning will be released in May 2017 according to the White House. The move is part of a final push of pardons and commutations in the closing days of the administration, and Obama has now shortened the sentences of more federal inmates than any other president, bringing the total to 1,385 as of today.

    Previously both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who leaked his cache of documents detailing U.S. intelligence efforts around the same time as Manning's crime, advocated for her clemency. "Mr. President, if you grant only one act of clemency as you exit the White House, please: free Chelsea Manning," Snowden tweeted. "You alone can save her life."

    Manning was arrested in 2010 after leaking 700,000 military files and diplomatic cables to Wikileaks, and her sentence exceeded that received by other individuals recently convicted of releasing classified material. She has twice attempted to commit suicide while incarcerated, and went on a hunger strike in an effort to get the Army to allow her to undertake gender reassignment surgery.

    As The New York Times reports, the decision by Obama rescued Manning from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

    She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.

    Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama's commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning is set to be freed in five months, on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.

    The commutation also relieved the Department of Defense of the difficult responsibility of her incarceration as she pushes for treatment for her gender dysphoria - including sex reassignment surgery - that the military has no experience providing.

    As The New York Times describes, Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009. There, she worked as a low-level intelligence analyst helping her unit assess insurgent activity in the area it was patrolling, a role that gave her access to a classified computer network.

    She copied hundreds of thousands of military incident logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which, among other things, exposed abuses of detainees by Iraqi military officers working with American forces and showed that civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely much higher than official estimates.

    The files she copied also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around the world showing sensitive deals and conversations, dossiers detailing intelligence assessments of Guantánamo detainees held without trial, and a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad in two Reuters journalists were killed, among others.

    She decided to make all these files public, as she wrote at the time, in the hope that they would incite "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." WikiLeaks' disclosed them - working with traditional news organizations including The New York Times - bringing notoriety to the group and its founder, Julian Assange.

    The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone was killed because of the leaks.

    In her commutation application, Ms. Manning said she had not imagined that she would be sentenced to the "extreme" term of 35 years, a term for which there was "no historical precedent." (There have only been a handful of leak cases, and most sentence are in the range of one to three years.)

    "I take full and complete responsibility for my decision to disclose these materials to the public," she wrote.

    "I have never made any excuses for what I did. I pleaded guilty without the protection of a plea agreement because I believed the military justice system would understand my motivation for the disclosure and sentence me fairly. I was wrong."

    The US Constitution allows a president to pardon "offenses against the United States" and commute -- either shorten or end -- federal sentences. Obama has so far granted 148 pardons since taking office in 2009 -- fewer than his predecessors, who also served two terms, George W. Bush (189) and Bill Clinton (396). But he has surpassed any other president in the number of granted, commutations, 1,385, more than the total number given by the past 12 presidents combined.

    The White House is expected to announce another round of clemency grants on Thursday, officials said. Most of Obama's clemency grants have gone to relatively unknown individuals but Tuesday's batch contained some who are famous, as is typical for presidents in their final days.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Who is blackmailing the president ? by Eric Zuesse

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia. ..."
    "... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com
    Eric Zuesse 2 days ago

    This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden, so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius' is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:

    "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.

    What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles? How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.

    'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?

    This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led Democratic Party. It's disgusting.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Mainstream Medias Russian Bogeymen by Gareth Porter

    DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are essentially charlatans.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
    "... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
    "... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
    "... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
    "... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
    "... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
    "... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
    "... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
    "... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
    "... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
    "... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
    "... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
    "... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
    "... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have deepened the New Cold War

    In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.

    DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.

    Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.

    The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.

    The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.

    Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."

    That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.

    Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

    The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well. However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.

    "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."

    Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.

    The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private.

    Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent, but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report "for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."

    Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive

    Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.

    In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion. That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.

    "DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their mouth shut."

    Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say."

    DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."

    The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.

    The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.

    As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

    Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'"

    Original DHS False Hacking Story

    The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.

    Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.

    On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield, Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.

    Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.

    On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water pump to fail.

    The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack.

    The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research, was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure on Nov. 18, 2011.

    After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation revealed in a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.

    DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what it's supposed to do – generate interest."

    Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they will exploit it.

    Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] .

    Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

    [Jan 16, 2017] The President Who Wasn't There Barack Obama's Legacy of Impotence

    Notable quotes:
    "... The people will have no say in the matter. As Oscar Wilde quipped: "All the world's a stage, badly cast." ..."
    "... Obama dismissed both attempts to downsize his unilateralist approach to military operations, saying with a chill touch of the surreal that the 14,000-and-counting sorties flown over Libya didn't amount to a "war." ..."
    "... This is Barack Obama, the political moralist? The change agent? The constitutional scholar? Listen to that voice. It is petulant and dismissive. Some might say peevish, like the whine of a talented student caught cheating on a final exam. ..."
    "... Corporate capitalism just wasn't delivering the goods anymore. Not for the bottom 80 percent, any way. The economy was in ruins, mired in what appeared to be a permanent recession. ..."
    "... His vaguely liberal political ideology remained opaque at the core. Instead of an over-arching agenda, Obama delivered facile jingoisms proclaiming a post-racial and post-partisan America. ..."
    "... the Obama revolution was over before it started, guttered by the politician's overweening desire to prove himself to the grandees of the establishment. ..."
    "... Within weeks of taking office, Obama had been taken to the woodshed by Robert Gates and General David Petreaus and had returned to the White House bruised and humbled. The withdrawal would slowly proceed, but a sinister force would remain behind indefinitely, a lethal contingent of some 50,000 or so CIA operatives, special forces units, hunter-killer squads and ruthless private security details. Bush's overt war quietly became a black op under Obama. Out of sight, out of mind. ..."
    "... Obama, in a cynical ploy to prove his martial meddle, journeyed to West Point and announced in a somber speech that he was raising the stakes in Afghanistan by injecting a Petreaus-sanctioned surge of forces into the country and unleashing a new campaign of lethal operations that would track and target suspected insurgents across the Hindu Kush and into Pakistan. ..."
    "... There was nothing to win in Afghanistan. Out on that distant rim of the world, there weren't even any standards to gauge military success. This was meant to be a punitive war, pure and simple, designed to draw as much blood as possible, an obscene war fought largely by remote-controlled drones attacking peasant villages with murderous indiscretion. ..."
    "... as Obama's wars spread from Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan and Yemen, Somalia and Libya, outside of the redoubtable Catholic Workers and Quakers and a few Code Pinkers -- the last flickering moral lights in the nation -- even those empty yawps of protest dissipated into whispered lamentations, hushed murmurs of disillusionment. Could it be that the American Left had gone extinct as any kind of potent political force and it took the presidency of Barack Obama to prove it? ..."
    "... This essay is adapted from Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . ..."
    "... Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His new book is Killing Trayvons: an Anthology of American Violence (with JoAnn Wypijewski and Kevin Alexander Gray). He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    Barack Obama was in Brasilia on March 19, 2011, when he announced with limited fanfare the latest regime change war of his presidency. The bombing of Libya had begun with a hail of cruise missile attacks and air strikes. It was something of an impromptu intervention, orchestrated largely by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and the diva of vengeance Samantha Power, always hot for a saturation bombing in the name of human rights.

    Obama soon upped the ante by suggesting that it was time for Qaddafi to go. The Empire had run out of patience with the mercurial colonel. The vague aims of the Libyan war had moved ominously from enforcing "a no-fly zone" to seeking regime change. Bombing raids soon targeted Qaddafi and his family. Coming in the wake of the extra-judicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a blood-spattered home invasion, Qaddafi rightly feared Obama wanted his body in a bag, too.

    Absent mass protests against the impending destruction of Tripoli, it fell to Congress to take some tentative steps to challenge the latest unauthorized and unprovoked war. At an earlier time in the history of the Republic, Obama's arrogant defiance of Congress and the War Powers Act of 1973 might have provoked a constitutional crisis. But these are duller and more attenuated days, where such vital matters have been rendered down into a kind of hollow political theater. All the players duly act their parts, but everyone, even the cable news audience, realizes that it is just for show. The wars will proceed. The Congress will fund them. The people will have no say in the matter. As Oscar Wilde quipped: "All the world's a stage, badly cast."

    That old softy John Boehner, the teary-eyed barkeep's son, sculpted a resolution demanding that Obama explain his intentions in Libya. It passed the House overwhelmingly. A competing resolution crafted by the impish gadfly Dennis Kucinich called for an immediate withdrawal of US forces from operations in Libya. This radically sane measure garnered a robust 148 votes. Obama dismissed both attempts to downsize his unilateralist approach to military operations, saying with a chill touch of the surreal that the 14,000-and-counting sorties flown over Libya didn't amount to a "war."

    This is Barack Obama, the political moralist? The change agent? The constitutional scholar? Listen to that voice. It is petulant and dismissive. Some might say peevish, like the whine of a talented student caught cheating on a final exam.

    Yes, all the political players were acting their parts. But what role exactly had Obama assumed?

    Obama, the Nobel laureate, casts himself as a New Internationalist, a chief executive of the global empire, more eager to consult with European heads of state than members of Congress, even of his own party. Indeed, his co-conspirators in the startling misadventure in Libya were David Cameron and Nikolas Sarkozy, an odd troika to say the least. Even Obama's own Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, seems to have been discreetly cut out of the decision loop.

    You begin to see why Obama sparks such a virulent reaction among the more histrionic precincts of the libertarian right. He has a majestic sense of his own certitude. The president often seems captivated by the nobility of his intentions, offering himself up as a kind of savior of the eroding American Imperium.

    While Obama sells pristine idealism to the masses, he is at heart a calculating pragmatist, especially when it comes to advancing his own ambitions. Obama doesn't want to be stained with defeat. It's one reason he has walked away from pushing for a Palestinian state, after his Middle East envoy George Mitchell resigned in frustration. It's why Obama stubbornly refused to insist on a public option for his atrocious health care bill. It's why he backed off cap-and-trade and organized labor's card check bill and the DREAM Act.

    Obama assumed the presidency at a moment when much of the nation seemed ready to confront the unwelcome fact that the American project had derailed. Before he died, Norman Mailer took to lamenting that the American culture was corroding from a bad conscience. The country was warping under the psychic weight of years of illegal wars, torture, official greed, religious prudishness, government surveillance, unsatisfying Viagra-supplemented sex, bland genetically engineered food, crappy jobs, dismal movies, and infantile, corporatized music?all scrolling by in an infinite montage of annoying Tweets. Even the virtual commons of cyberspace had gone solipsistic.

    Corporate capitalism just wasn't delivering the goods anymore. Not for the bottom 80 percent, any way. The economy was in ruins, mired in what appeared to be a permanent recession. The manufacturing sector had been killed from the inside-out, with millions of well-paying jobs outsourced and nothing but dreary service-sector positions to take their place. Chronic long-term unemployment hovered at more than 10 percent, worse, much worse, in black America. Those who clung to their jobs had seen their wages stagnate, their home values shrivel and were suffocating under merciless mounds of debt. Meanwhile, capital moved in ever-tightening circles among a new odious breed of super-rich, making sweat-free billions from the facile movement of money.

    By 2008, the wistfulness seemed to have evaporated from the American spirit. The country had seen its own government repeatedly prey on its citizens' fear of the future. Paranoia had become the last growth industry. From the High Sierras to the Blue Ridge, the political landscape was sour and spiteful, the perfect seed-ground for the sprouting of the Tea Party and even ranker and more venomous movements on the American right. These were not the ideological descendents of the fiery libertarian Barry Goldwater. The tea-baggers lacked Goldwater's western innocence and naive idealism. These suburban populists, by and large, were white, unhappy and aging. Animated by the grim nostalgia for a pre-Lapsarian fantasyland called the Reagan administration, many sensed their station in society slipping inexorably away. They wanted their country back. But back from whom?

    Instead of blaming corporate outsourcers or predatory bankers, they directed their vindictive impulse toward immigrants and blacks, government workers and teachers, scientists and homosexuals. There's something profoundly pathetic about the political fatalism of this new species of Know-Nothings. But, it must be said, their wrath was mostly pure. This strange consortium of discontent seethed with an inchoate sense of alienation, an acidic despair at the diminished potentialities of life in post-industrial America.

    No, these were not fanatical idealists or even ante-bellum utopians. They were levelers, of a sort, splenetic and dread-fuelled levelers, conspiratorialists with a Nixonian appetite for political destruction. Primed into a frenzy by the cynical rantings of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, mass gatherings of Tea Partiers across the summer of 2009 showed signs of a collective psychopathy, as if the enervating madness from decades of confinement in the hothouse of the American suburbs had finally ruptured in primetime for all the world to watch over-and-over again on YouTube with mounting mortification. Right there on the National Mall could be heard the vapid gibberish of Michele Bachmann and the new American preterite, those lost and bitter souls who felt their culture had left them far behind.

    With his sunny disposition and Prospero-like aptitude for mystification, Obama should have been able to convert them or, at least, to roll over them. Instead, they kicked his ass. How?

    Obama is a master of gesture politics, but he tends to flinch in nearly every pitched battle, even when the odds and the public are behind him. His political instincts drive him to seek cover in the middle ground. He is a reflexive compromiser, more Rodney "Can't We All Just Get Along" King than Reverend King. Even when confronted by bumbling hacks like John Boehner and Eric Cantor, Obama tends to wilt.

    Perhaps Obama had never before been confronted with quite this level of toxic hostility. After all, he'd lived something of a charmed life, the life of a star-child, coddled and pampered, encouraged and adulated, from Indonesia to Harvard. Obama was the physical and psychic embodiment of the new multiculturalism: lean, affable, assured, non-threatening. His vaguely liberal political ideology remained opaque at the core. Instead of an over-arching agenda, Obama delivered facile jingoisms proclaiming a post-racial and post-partisan America. Instead of radical change, Obama offered simply managerial competence. This, naturally, the Berserkers of the Right interpreted as hubris and arrogance and such hollow homilies served only to exacerbate their rage. The virulent right had profiled Obama and found him to be the perfect target for their accreted animus. And, even better, they had zeroed-in on an enemy so innately conflict-averse that even when pummeled with racist slurs he wouldn't punch back.

    Of course, Obama's most grievous political wounds were self-inflicted, starting even before his election when he rushed back to Washington to help rescue Bush's Wall Street bailout. This was perhaps the first real indication that the luminous campaign speeches about generational and systemic change masked the servile psyche of a man who was desperately yearning to be embraced by the nation's political and financial elites. Instead of meeting with the victims of Wall Street predators or their advocates, like Elizabeth Warren and Ralph Nader, Obama fist-bumped with the brain trust of Goldman Sachs and schmoozed with the creme de la creme of K Street corporate lobbyists. In the end, Obama helped salvage some of the most venal and corrupt enterprises on Wall Street, agreed to shield their executives from prosecution for their financial crimes and, predictably, later got repaid with their scorn.

    Thus the Obama revolution was over before it started, guttered by the politician's overweening desire to prove himself to the grandees of the establishment. From there on, other promises, from confronting climate change to closing Gitmo, from ending torture to initiating a nationalized health care system, proved even easier to break.

    Take the issue that had so vivified his campaign: ending the war on Iraq. Within weeks of taking office, Obama had been taken to the woodshed by Robert Gates and General David Petreaus and had returned to the White House bruised and humbled. The withdrawal would slowly proceed, but a sinister force would remain behind indefinitely, a lethal contingent of some 50,000 or so CIA operatives, special forces units, hunter-killer squads and ruthless private security details. Bush's overt war quietly became a black op under Obama. Out of sight, out of mind.

    By the fall of 2009 even the most calloused Washington hands had grown weary over how deeply entangled the US occupation of Afghanistan had become. The savage rhythms of the war there had backfired. Too many broken promises, too many bombed weddings and assassinations, too many dead and mutilated children, too much cowardice and corruption in the puppet satrapy in Kabul. The tide had irrevocably turned against the US and its squalid policies. Far from being terminally crippled, the Taliban was now stronger than it had been at any time since 2001. But instead of capitalizing on this tectonic shift of sentiment by drawing down American troops, Obama, in a cynical ploy to prove his martial meddle, journeyed to West Point and announced in a somber speech that he was raising the stakes in Afghanistan by injecting a Petreaus-sanctioned surge of forces into the country and unleashing a new campaign of lethal operations that would track and target suspected insurgents across the Hindu Kush and into Pakistan.

    That night Obama spoke in a stern cadence, studded with imperious pauses, as if to suggest that he, unlike the fickle George W. Bush, was going to wage the Afghan war until it was won. But he knew better. And so did his high command–even Stanley McChrystal and David Petreaus, who had trademarked the counter-insurgency strategy. There was nothing to win in Afghanistan. Out on that distant rim of the world, there weren't even any standards to gauge military success. This was meant to be a punitive war, pure and simple, designed to draw as much blood as possible, an obscene war fought largely by remote-controlled drones attacking peasant villages with murderous indiscretion.

    Afterwards, the American peace movement could only bray in impotent outrage. But as Obama's wars spread from Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan and Yemen, Somalia and Libya, outside of the redoubtable Catholic Workers and Quakers and a few Code Pinkers -- the last flickering moral lights in the nation -- even those empty yawps of protest dissipated into whispered lamentations, hushed murmurs of disillusionment. Could it be that the American Left had gone extinct as any kind of potent political force and it took the presidency of Barack Obama to prove it?

    And what of Obama's spellbound followers, those youthful crusaders who saw him illumined in the sacral glow of his ethereal rhetoric and cleaved to him during the hard slog of two campaigns with a near-religious devotion? What was running through their minds when the mists finally parted to reveal that Obama was implementing cunning tracings of Bush-era policies on everything from the indefinite detention of uncharged prisoners in the war on terror to raids on medical marijuana distributors in states where medical pot has been legalized? What, indeed.

    Illusions die hard, especially when shattered by cruise missiles.

    This essay is adapted from Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . Join the debate on Facebook

    Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His new book is Killing Trayvons: an Anthology of American Violence (with JoAnn Wypijewski and Kevin Alexander Gray). He can be reached at: [email protected] .

    [Jan 15, 2017] At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run the country

    Notable quotes:
    "... I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US. ..."
    "... And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot. ..."
    "... Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State. ..."
    "... The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell. ..."
    "... The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open. ..."
    "... Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump. ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Fiver , January 14, 2017 at 3:18 am

    Here's an account by Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector on the Iraq WMD investigation. It certainly appears to me from this and a number of sources that what we have is a scandal of mammoth proportions that would suck in the senior leadership of both Parties, the Intelligence Community, the State Department, the White House and of course all of the various surrogates throughout media, were this all subject to an independent, credible investigation.

    I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4

    And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/13/obama-opens-nsas-vast-trove-of-warrantless-data-to-entire-intelligence-community-just-in-time-for-trump/

    olga , January 14, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Ritter's piece is quite exhaustive

    steelhead23 , January 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State.

    Jagger , January 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible

    The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell.

    Altandmain , January 14, 2017 at 3:53 am

    The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open.

    We've got multiple wrongs here. The Democratic Establishment, the Intelligence agencies, and the Pravda-like media form the Deep State, which is really controlled by the very rich. They are trying to cling to power here and extract rent from society for the very rich. In return, its political servants are themselves rewarded with wealth.

    Then there's Trump. While I think he's a very unsavory person and he will do some very damaging things to society, making up accusations of Russian hacks is not the way to go. So far not a shred of evidence has been provided that Russia was hacking. I doubt we will get any. That does not, as the article notes mean that Russia is guiltless, but so fa the Democrats are pulling lies out of a hat and hoping desperately it sticks.

    Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump.

    The sad part is that America is going to continue its decline unless this whole mess stops. It is likely that anyone truly principled would have to clean house in both parties and in many senior leadership positions across the US government. Then there is the matter of corporate America and its agenda of rent seeking.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Pretty sure they call it deep state for a reason .... its the known unknowns you have to worry about

    Notable quotes:
    "... "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place." ..."
    "... Assasinate, NO. Exposed, Setup, Patsy, Blamed, ABSOLUTELY ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:23 PM

    If Trump is worried about the existence of some "deep state" his first act in office should be to demand a complete list of every intelligence sector employee, and the budgets, and dig in and inform himself. They all work for him now.

    Croesus -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:41 PM

    Assassinating Trump would be a VERY bad idea:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/his-first-foreign-trip-presiden...

    Escrava Isaura -> Croesus , Jan 14, 2017 10:44 PM

    CIA for dummies:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXcL5o55q8s."#t=20s "

    remain calm -> Chris Dakota , Jan 14, 2017 10:59 PM

    The Bush family will have him killed.

    Chris Dakota -> remain calm , Jan 14, 2017 11:01 PM

    Those Pedo Bush's don't have the power to do this anymore.

    JFK was a lesson. Trump very well knows not to make the same mistakes.

    Chupacabra-322 -> Chris Dakota , Jan 14, 2017 11:04 PM

    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    Arrest Hillary & Bill Clinton. Freeze their assets. RICO The Clinton Foundation & bring down the Satanic Global Crime Syndicate.

    This will de facto Drain the Swamp. Then, immediately End the Fed.

    These Scum Fuck Occultist have been "Illuminated" and forced out into the light. This opportunity to peacefully "Drain the Swamp" cannot be squandered.

    Scuba Steve -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    um, pretty sure they are deep state for a reason .... its the "known unknowns" you have to worry about

    GUS100CORRINA -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:53 PM

    I AGREE with complete audit of all intelligence personnel and the entire intelligence apparatus.

    This is really a question of FAITH versus FEAR. i choose FAITH over FEAR. Things will work out according to a divine plan.

    While I appreciate the patriotism and intelligence of the individuals WHO contributed to this article, this article is bordering on FEAR MONGERING.

    We need to be discerning when reading articles like this one because they create a spirit of FEAR. The DEEP STATE has been with us since GENESIS 3:15.

    Paul Kersey -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    From the above article:

    "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place."

    Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is both a Goldmanite and, like his convict father, a neocon. It is Jared Kushner who chose all the Goldmanites and Neocons in Trump's Cabinet, just as it was Kushner who got rid of Gov. Chris Christie, the former NJ Prosecutor who put Jared's dad, Charles Kushner, in Federal prison.

    Consequently, there will be no Trump assassination, because Kushner and his Goldmanites will not allow it. VP-Elect Mike Pence may be a lot of things, but a Goldmanite is not one of them. The Goldmanites, historically, were not his campaign contributors, and they do not want him in the Presidency. Trump will be protected BY Deep State and won't need to be protected FROM Deep State.

    NoWayJose , Jan 14, 2017 10:24 PM

    Didn't know the fired CIA guy ended up on the Warren 'coverup' Commission.

    socalbeach , Jan 14, 2017 10:31 PM

    The CIA has plenty of experience in overthrowing foreign governments. All they have to do is turn their expertise inwardly.

    Radical Marijuana -> socalbeach , Jan 14, 2017 10:55 PM

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/more-confessions-economic-hit-man-time-they're-coming-your-democracy

    More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They're Coming For Your Democracy"

    "...Perkins has just reissued his book with major updates. The basic premise of the book remains the same, but the update shows how the economic hit man approach has evolved in the last 12 years. Among other things, U.S. cities are now on the target list. The combination of debt, enforced austerity, underinvestment, privatization, and the undermining of democratically elected governments is now happening here" ... "Things have just gotten so much worse in the last 12 years since the first Confessions was written.

    Economic hit men and jackals have expanded tremendously, including the United States and Europe. Back in my day we were pretty much limited to what we called the third world, or economically developing countries, but now it's everywhere. And in fact, the cancer of the corporate empire has metastasized into what I would call a failed global death economy. This is an economy that's based on destroying the very resources upon which it depends, and upon the military. It's become totally global, and it's a failure."

    Son of Captain Nemo , Jan 14, 2017 10:40 PM

    Not with this announcement ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/his-first-foreign-trip-presiden... ) and a repeat for detente wiping the slate clean!...

    And if he is assassinated?...

    Plan on a "treasure hunt" that will result in the likes of POTUS "transvestitus" John "winter soldier" Kerry and John "demonic" Leprechaun Brennan being FOUND, SKINNED and put on display in front of their respective places of work!...

    SO HELP ME GOD!!! THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!!!!!

    Scuba Steve -> Son of Captain Nemo , Jan 14, 2017 10:56 PM

    see, i agree with this.

    If something happens to Trump, I'm thinking there are going to be a lot of big names hanging from trees for all of Facebook to pass around.

    CC Lemon , Jan 14, 2017 10:35 PM

    What's frightening is that as the elites had NO IDEA hillary would lose so bad, they might have equally NO IDEA of the massive blowback should they go through with anything like this.

    JarMyMetric , Jan 14, 2017 10:36 PM

    Don't worry Trump will start magically singing in key very soon after inauguration or Pence will sing for him.

    dogismycopilot , Jan 14, 2017 10:37 PM

    A lot of US spooks are on the gravy train. Do you know how many Orlando McMansions and DC Colonials have been bought with black bag money? There are Billions flowing in a river through the Middle East.

    Also, these fuckers don't know how to do anything but destroy value and kill people. They know this is the only job they can get. They are incompetent in the private market. Look at the MI6 idiot who writes worse than a high school kid.

    CIA isn't going to give that up without a fight. They are cornered rats. When Putin is in Iceland I hope he can relate this survival story to President Trump:

    https://jppreston.com/2010/12/23/the-six-most-interesting-excerpts-from-...

    Following World War II, in which his father served with the Russian secret police, his parents move into a communal apartment in St. Petersburg where they eventually give birth to Putin (1952). Because Russia is facing major poverty and is still recovering from the war, the apartment is, in the words of Putin's school teacher, "horrid without any conveniences" (10). Although he goes on to explain his experiences with the other families in the commune, none of whom had any children, he briefly tells a story of the first time he learned "the meaning of the word cornered."

    There, on that stair landing, I got a quick and lasting lesson in the meaning of the word cornered. There were hordes of rats in the front entryway. My friends and I used to chase them around with sticks. Once I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall until I drove it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. Suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at me. I was surprised and frightened. Now the rat was chasing me. It jumped across the landing and down the stairs. Luckily, I was a little faster and managed to slam the door shut in its nose. (10)

    matermaker , Jan 14, 2017 11:00 PM

    I call bullshit, Slavo. I feel certain Mr. T. fully understands the deep state and watched Ike's last address. There is an equally powerful 'state' in this nation and it is not born out of the government. Even the negroes will rally to his side if they feel he's a better populist alternative to the deep state.

    I'm sure that I would giggle to read who is getting interviewed for T's personal security. He's not going to go driving in chicago with the top down. Kennedy pissed off all sides of power.

    I do not see T having a really bad day while traveling or flying. Kennedy was arrogant in a much different way. This time 'round, it's more like Adolf choosing sides with Earnst Rhom and brown shirts over the Gestapo.

    And if 'they' are listening, as they usually are... safe drivers are rewarded with auto insurance. Getting yearly full on check ups should drop bucks on your insurance. No penalties for being unhealthy, but rewards for being healthy. It's called health care, not sick care. Get a camera shoved up your ass every ten years after 50? discount! oh... and that shouldn't cost 15k

    Rebel yell , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    If the central idiots assassinate Trump, there should be massive wildcat strikes and refusal to buy anything, and the military should refuse to follow all military commands! Don't fight the terrorists aka CIA war!

    kanoli , Jan 14, 2017 10:56 PM

    The fact that it is so plainly stated that the intelligence apparatus run the country and none dare stand against them is evidence that it is high time for a president and the people to take them down.

    Saul Alinsky's Rule #1 is to appear more powerful than you are in order to cultivate fear in your enemies. The American intelligence community and military-industrial complex are rotten and termite-eaten by corruption.

    Every successful revolution is merely the kicking in of a door that is already rotten. . I'm not sure Trump is the guy for it, but I'd sure like to see him try.

    NobodyNowhere , Jan 14, 2017 11:01 PM

    " military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States"

    MIC is NOT the ultimate power in the US. Certain Bankster dynasties are. MIC is just one of their profit centers.

    JailBanksters , Jan 14, 2017 11:06 PM

    Assasinate, NO. Exposed, Setup, Patsy, Blamed, ABSOLUTELY

    There's too many Eyes, and everybody will know who planned it and who did it, so he won't be Assassinated by physical means, just Politically Assassinated.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Will The CIA Assassinate Trump Ron Paul Warns Of More Powerful, Shadow Government

    Very questionable assessment.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia. ..."
    "... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this." ..."
    "... No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment ..."
    "... Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    It isn't just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.

    It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks the fate of JFK.

    Trump publicly dissed the intelligence community assessments on Russian hacking; they retaliated with a made up dossier about the alleged Trump-Putin 'golden shower' episode .

    Russians have compromising footage of Donald Trump paying prostitutes to piss on a bed ???? #GoldenShowerGate https://t.co/AdQGhE2y06

    - Loco Goose ???????????????? (@CrazyGoose) January 11, 2017

    While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to script reality, not him.

    Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).

    Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious response.

    Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.

    There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation too far.

    It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death, drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.

    If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people who took out Kennedy there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge. And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against the national-security establishment.

    As Jacob G. Hornberger warns :

    In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.

    "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this."

    [ ]

    No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment [ ] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.

    Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder.

    Kennedy's antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

    [ ]

    Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro , both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.

    [ ]

    Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.

    And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.

    It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.

    The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.

    There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don't let the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution paradigm.

    True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.

    As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with Frank Sinatra's "My Way" at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.

    If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a 'wild card' path styled after the ego of President Trump.

    With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place.

    As SHTF has previously reported, the continuity of government "Doomsday" command-and-control planes were brought out after the election as a public show of power to Trump and the American people. The shadow government is real, and for now, maintains dominance.

    "Mysterious" plane circling over Denver was "just" an E-6B Mercury "doomsday" plane https://t.co/SqJlBkdIqg pic.twitter.com/oE0BBWrhFL

    - The Aviationist (@TheAviationist) November 17, 2016

    Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul warned of the shadow government taking control of President Trump's administration before it was even formed:

    [Jan 14, 2017] Reflections on a Post Election Soft Coup: Fake News , CIA Intervention, US-NATO Militarization on Russia s Doorstep

    Jan 13, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca
    All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.

    What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we know how that worked out for JFK.

    Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a fascinating study in human dynamics.

    Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.

    One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure of the 2016 losses.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Neocon chickenhawks as closet Napoleons with huge sense of inferiority by DUNCAN KELLY

    Notable quotes:
    "... Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule. ..."
    "... Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions. ..."
    "... The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> New Deal democrat... January 14, 2017 at 08:16 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/books/review/napoleon-a-life-by-andrew-roberts.html

    November 16, 2014

    'Napoleon: A Life,' by Andrew Roberts

    By DUNCAN KELLY

    On July 22, 1789, a week after the storming of the Bastille in Paris, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote to his older brother, Joseph, that there was nothing much to worry about. "Calm will return. In a month." His timing was off, but perhaps he took the misjudgment to heart because he spent the rest of his life trying to bring glory and order to France by building a new sort of empire. By the time he was crowned emperor on Dec. 2, 1804, he could say, "I am the Revolution." It was, according to the historian Andrew Roberts's epically scaled new biography, "Napoleon: A Life," both the ultimate triumph of the self-made man, an outsider from Corsica who rose to the apex of French political life, and simultaneously a "defining moment of the Enlightenment," fixing the "best" of the French Revolution through his legal, educational and administrative reforms. Such broad contours get at what Napoleon meant by saying to his literary hero Goethe at a meeting in Erfurt, "Politics is fate."

    Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule.

    His strategy always included dashing off thousands of letters and plans, in a personal regime calling for little sleep, much haste and a penchant for being read to while taking baths so as not to waste even a minute. He compartmentalized ruthlessly, changing tack between lobbying for more shoes and brandy for the army at one minute, to directing the personal lives of his siblings or writing love letters to the notorious Josephine at another; here ensuring extravagant financial "contributions" from those whom he had vanquished, there discussing the booty to send back to Paris, particularly from the extraordinary expedition in Egypt where his "savants had missed nothing." The personal and the political ran alongside each other in his mind.

    Yet when his longtime collaborator but fair-weather political friend, the diplomat Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, suggested that Napoleon try to make those he conquered learn to love France, Napoleon replied that this was an irrelevance. "Aimer: I don't really know what this means when applied to politics," he said. Still, if grand strategy and national interest lay behind foreign affairs, there were nevertheless personal rules of conduct to uphold. Talleyrand was a party to Napoleon's strategy since supporting his coup d'état against the French Directory in 1799. That was O.K. And by short-selling securities he made millions for himself. But he was called out by Napoleon and dismissed as vice grand elector when found facing both ways politically at a crucial moment.

    Napoleon understood those temptations because he was also flexible enough to tilt toward the winning side, regularly supporting any form of local religion that could help him militarily. Nonetheless, Roberts's Napoleon is a soldier, statesman and "bona fide intellectual," who rode his luck for longer than most intellectuals in politics ever do....

    Duncan Kelly teaches political thought at the University of Cambridge.

    libezkova -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 10:25 AM
    " "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" "

    Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions.

    kthomas -> libezkova... , January 14, 2017 at 11:48 AM
    Russian troll?
    libezkova -> kthomas... , -1
    I like the way you are thinking about this issue my totally brainwashed friend (sorry Anne ;-)

    Your remark just confirms the power of official propaganda machine

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works

    == quote ==

    The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative.

    The current "Russian hacking" hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn't intended to be believed it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma.

    ilsm -> libezkova...
    US press is a propaganda mill.

    The DNC is not the "US election", therefore how can hacking the DNC be a serious issue?

    Then they give front page to Mr. Lewis who says a deceitful line that 'Russians made Clinton lose'. Nothing in the hack changed my observation that she is a war monger in wall st's employ.

    They print and broadcast the lines fed. Lines which have no basis in truth.

    If you think of what is said you have to conclude that criminals should have privacy and those digging perpetrate harm when the "leaks" exposed truths the public is not supposed to know.

    If the average American could think and get a few facts they would conclude there is no democracy because the things they know are not true.

    Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 05:11 PM
    libezkova -> ilsm...

    MSM is an executive arm of "deep state" propaganda machine.

    http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    == quote ==

    During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency's involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff.

    ...Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America's leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. "Let's not pick on some poor reporters, for God's sake," William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee's investigators. "Let's go to the managements. They were witting." In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

    == end of quote ==

    This is not about DNC hacking. Hacking is just a smokescreen. The real game is to prevent any change in the USA foreign policy, especially in Syria and toward Russia. That's why they tried this "soft coup" against Trump. That's why NYT, CNN, etc published all those dirty stories.

    Also many CIA bureaucrats do not want to be sent from bloated Washington headquarters to distant lands to do what they are supposed to do -- collect intelligence, not to engage is domestic politics (and they were fully engaged on the side of Hillary).

    ilsm -> kthomas..., January 14, 2017 at 03:30 PM

    Preparation and objects make one lucky.

    Americans are remiss in ignoring Napoleon, many of his students, etc.

    libezkova is worth reading.

    The problem with HRC, Kagan or Leeden is they thought a new American century was strategy, then silled a lot of snake oil.

    ilsm said... , January 14, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    The past year we have had two war parties tilt for the White House. Neither has strategy, both morally bankrupt!

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    Rev Martin Luther King at Riverside Church in NYC Apr 1967.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 14, 2017 at 01:03 PM
    [Awesome, Dude. THX. Should be mandatory reading for everyone that votes or expresses political opinion in the US. As inappropriate as it is to cherry pick anything from this marvelous speech/sermon out of context to its entirety, this one tidbit really stood out:] "... There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!..."
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 14, 2017 at 03:34 PM

    I wonder had I read it as a young man would I have the courage to accept it the way I do now after I have made all the wrong decisions.

    He opened my eyes nearly as much as my friend Bob who had been an SF advisor at the province level and confirmed everything written about the corruption and plundering of the RVN government.

    MLK was incredibly aware of the truth on the ground in Vietnam.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Shes Back

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government - no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal - that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out - and the Sunday night release proves this - that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis. ..."
    "... Last Sunday's revelations make the case against Clinton far more serious than Comey presented it to be last summer. Indeed, Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton's, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again. ..."
    "... One of the metrics that the DOJ examines in deciding whether to prosecute is an analysis of harm caused by the potential defendant. I have examined the newly released emails, and the state secrets have been whited out. Yet it is clear from the FBI analysis of them that real secrets were exposed by the nation's chief diplomat - meaning she violated an agreement she signed right after she took office, in which she essentially promised that she would not do what she eventually did. ..."
    "... Anyone who thinks that the Clintons represent no threat to the Republic, or that they have no further political ambitions, are delusional. ..."
    "... "the friendly hackers' (Israelis )" sounds like it's a page from the same book as "moderate rebels". Is there a name for this language? ..."
    "... Begemot: yes, the probability that Clinton has serious dirt on Hussein is high. ..."
    "... More like acknowledging the fact that being clear about not lumping Israel in with Russia and China is good for one's future prospects in the media business. Napolitano's got a wide truth-telling streak, so simply not mentioning the Israelis wasn't good enough. ..."
    "... A minor but perhaps telling point. Loretta Lynch recently admitted that contrary to her previous denials, Hillary's emails and server were the subject of her infamous conversations with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    The case was briefly reopened 11 days before Election Day. The FBI announced it had stumbled upon a potential treasure-trove of emails contained in a laptop jointly owned and used by Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner. The FBI believed at the time that the laptop contained nearly every email Abedin had received from Clinton. Weiner was under investigation for various sexual crimes, and the FBI had obtained the laptop in its search for evidence against him.

    Then, a week later, the FBI announced that it had found nothing among the 650,000 emails in the laptop that would cause it to reopen the Clinton case, and it closed the case a second time.

    Donald Trump argued during the last weeks of the presidential election campaign that Clinton had exposed state secrets to hostile foreign governments. FBI agents who disagreed with their boss's decision not to seek the indictment of Clinton made the same arguments. Clinton denied vehemently that she had caused any state secrets to pass into the hands of hostile foreign governments.

    Then Trump was elected president of the United States.

    Then Clinton left the public scene.

    Then, last Sunday evening, during the NFL playoff game between the New York Giants and the Green Bay Packers, the FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government - no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal - that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out - and the Sunday night release proves this - that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.

    Last Sunday's revelations make the case against Clinton far more serious than Comey presented it to be last summer. Indeed, Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton's, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again.

    One of the metrics that the DOJ examines in deciding whether to prosecute is an analysis of harm caused by the potential defendant. I have examined the newly released emails, and the state secrets have been whited out. Yet it is clear from the FBI analysis of them that real secrets were exposed by the nation's chief diplomat - meaning she violated an agreement she signed right after she took office, in which she essentially promised that she would not do what she eventually did.

    The essence of the American justice system is the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is beneath the law's protections or above its obligations.

    Should Clinton skate free so the Trump administration can turn the page? Should the new DOJ be compassionate toward Clinton because of her humiliating election loss and likely retirement from public life? Of course not.

    She should be prosecuted as would anyone else who let loose secrets to our enemies and then lied about it.

    Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

    dearieme , January 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

    This needs careful consideration, weighing up the pros and cons, determining what's in the interest of the US republic. Let there be no rush to judgement.

    And then lock her up.

    Diversity Heretic , January 11, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Anyone who thinks that the Clintons represent no threat to the Republic, or that they have no further political ambitions, are delusional. Jeff Sessions or Congress, or both, should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate every aspect of the Clintons' conduct, and prosecute them for every crime that they've committed. States should also be encouraged to open investigations for criminal activities under state laws. The Clintons should spend the rest of their lives responding to subpoenaes, facing trials, paying fines and serving prison time.

    @SteveRogers42
    Maybe that's the position that Christie and/or Guiliani have been saved for.
    woodNfish , January 11, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

    HRC, Billy boy, Loretta Lynch, Comey, Lois Lerner and the many other criminals and thugs in the obama, bush and clinton administrations need to be prosecuted to show there is accountability in government.

    The Grate Deign , January 11, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Anyone who has had a job involving the handling of classified material knows that Clinton's actions violated the law. I appreciate Judge Napolitano's update on this case but remain mystified as to why the issue even needs to be discussed.

    Furthermore, the matter of motive seldom gets mentioned in public discussions. While Clinton's e-mails were left in an unsecured state, the Clinton Foundation was getting tens of millions in "donations" from the Russians and others, and former President Clinton was getting paid handsomely for delivering a speech in Russia.

    Not only is it reasonable to ask whether she - no, they - committed actual treason, it's unreasonable not to ask!

    @Thirdeye
    Donations from the Russians? Which Russians? We do know that the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Saudis, followed by Clinton approving a massive arms deal with them as Secretary of State. Those same arms are being used for the slaughter in Yemen.
    Skeptikal , January 11, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "She should be prosecuted as would anyone else who let loose secrets to our enemies and then lied about it"

    Especially since similar accusations are being lobbed at Trump. Not identical, of course, but they can be compared-Trump putatively traitorously associated with Putin.

    What's sauce for the gander . . .

    But I don't understand this:

    "Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton's, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again."

    Why would Sessions step aside? And why would that mean that the investigation will probably be opened again?

    Thirdeye , January 11, 2017 at 10:18 pm GMT
    @The Grate Deign
    Anyone who has had a job involving the handling of classified material knows that Clinton's actions violated the law. I appreciate Judge Napolitano's update on this case but remain mystified as to why the issue even needs to be discussed.

    Furthermore, the matter of motive seldom gets mentioned in public discussions. While Clinton's e-mails were left in an unsecured state, the Clinton Foundation was getting tens of millions in "donations" from the Russians and others, and former President Clinton was getting paid handsomely for delivering a speech in Russia.

    Not only is it reasonable to ask whether she -- no, they -- committed actual treason, it's unreasonable not to ask!

    Donations from the Russians? Which Russians? We do know that the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Saudis, followed by Clinton approving a massive arms deal with them as Secretary of State. Those same arms are being used for the slaughter in Yemen.

    @The Grate Deign
    These Russians: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0


    And you're making my point for me. Thanks!

    Cyrano , January 11, 2017 at 10:21 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I wish Hillary wasn't so modest and declared openly what motivated her to act as she did. The reason why she used private email server is not because she is dumb, but because she is super smart. You see, she foresaw the Russian hacking of the American election and took steps to minimize the damage.

    What would you do if you were Russian hacker – what is the first place that you would look in for top secret files? The government run servers of course. You see how smart Hillary was? She hid those sensitive documents in the last place any self-respecting hacker would look – on a private server.

    This shows how everybody misunderastimated Hillary. She was far ahead of the game and showed ability of strategic thinking unmatched by anyone. I think that Americans made grave mistake for not electing her as president and that US would have benefited greatly from having such a superpatriot, not to mention visionary, as leader. I am also disappointed that the MSM didn't come up with this most logical of explanations.

    The Grate Deign , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT
    @Thirdeye
    Donations from the Russians? Which Russians? We do know that the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Saudis, followed by Clinton approving a massive arms deal with them as Secretary of State. Those same arms are being used for the slaughter in Yemen.

    These Russians: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

    And you're making my point for me. Thanks!

    NoseytheDuke , January 12, 2017 at 4:39 am GMT

    "the friendly hackers' (Israelis )" sounds like it's a page from the same book as "moderate rebels". Is there a name for this language?

    @The Grate Deign
    I think he was referring to the fact that all countries spy on all other countries. Some of them are enemy countries. The rest are intended by the shorthand, "friendly hackers." And nobody does more "friendly" spying and hacking than the USA.
    @HBM
    Hasbara
    SteveRogers42 , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 am GMT
    @Diversity Heretic
    Anyone who thinks that the Clintons represent no threat to the Republic,or that they have no further political ambitions, are delusional. Jeff Sessions or Congress, or both, should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate every aspect of the Clintons' conduct, and prosecute them for every crime that they've committed. States should also be encouraged to open investigations for criminal activities under state laws. The Clintons should spend the rest of their lives responding to subpoenaes, facing trials, paying fines and serving prison time.

    Maybe that's the position that Christie and/or Guiliani have been saved for.

    The Grate Deign , January 12, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT
    @NoseytheDuke
    "the friendly hackers' (Israelis )" sounds like it's a page from the same book as "moderate rebels".

    Is there a name for this language?

    I think he was referring to the fact that all countries spy on all other countries. Some of them are enemy countries. The rest are intended by the shorthand, "friendly hackers." And nobody does more "friendly" spying and hacking than the USA.

    Authenticjazzman , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT
    @Cyrano
    I wish Hillary wasn't so modest and declared openly what motivated her to act as she did. The reason why she used private email server is not because she is dumb, but because she is super smart. You see, she foresaw the Russian hacking of the American election and took steps to minimize the damage.

    What would you do if you were Russian hacker – what is the first place that you would look in for top secret files? The government run servers of course. You see how smart Hillary was? She hid those sensitive documents in the last place any self-respecting hacker would look – on a private server.

    This shows how everybody misunderastimated Hillary. She was far ahead of the game and showed ability of strategic thinking unmatched by anyone. I think that Americans made grave mistake for not electing her as president and that US would have benefited greatly from having such a superpatriot, not to mention visionary, as leader. I am also disappointed that the MSM didn't come up with this most logical of explanations.

    Begemot , January 12, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama. All of this will then become moot. Unfortunately. Prosecuting and jailing our masters sets a bad precedent.

    @Bill Jones
    But the Clinton Foundation will still be up for demolition. ,
    @another fred
    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama.
    I don't think he can pardon her as she has not been convicted. He would have to grant her immunity from prosecution. I don't think that is in his enumerated powers.
    Svigor , January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Begemot: yes, the probability that Clinton has serious dirt on Hussein is high.

    Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.

    Lol, cute. Russian, Chinese hackers, penetrating US gov't and stealing US gov't secrets: "from Hell's heart, I hack at thee." Israeli hackers, penetrating US gov't and stealing US gov't secrets: "I'm only doing this because I love you."

    Why would Sessions step aside? And why would that mean that the investigation will probably be opened again?

    I take it that Napolitano's reading of the tea leaves is that Sessions will appoint an independent investigator.

    Is there a name for this language?

    Newspeak.

    Svigor , January 12, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I think he was referring to the fact that all countries spy on all other countries. Some of them are enemy countries. The rest are intended by the shorthand, "friendly hackers." And nobody does more "friendly" spying and hacking than the USA.

    More like acknowledging the fact that being clear about not lumping Israel in with Russia and China is good for one's future prospects in the media business. Napolitano's got a wide truth-telling streak, so simply not mentioning the Israelis wasn't good enough.

    Bill Jones , January 13, 2017 at 12:00 am GMT

    What sort of clown thinks that Israel is less of an enemy of the US than China or Russia?

    Svigor , January 13, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT • 100 Words

    What sort of clown thinks that Israel is less of an enemy of the US than China or Russia?

    I do. I'd trust the Israelis, before I trusted the Chinese. Not that that's saying a whole lot. There's a lot of daylight between my position and the "our greatest ally" position, but there's some room between mine and the "Israel, China, Russia, same diff" position, too, I guess is what I'm saying.

    another fred , January 13, 2017 at 2:12 am GMT
    @Begemot
    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama. All of this will then become moot. Unfortunately. Prosecuting and jailing our masters sets a bad precedent.

    I expect Hillary Clinton will get a pardon from Obama.

    I don't think he can pardon her as she has not been convicted. He would have to grant her immunity from prosecution. I don't think that is in his enumerated powers.

    @another fred
    From Wikipedia:
    In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.
    Maybe amnesty. It will be interesting to see if he tries. She might have to admit guilt to get amnesty.
    another fred , January 13, 2017 at 2:21 am GMT • 100 Words
    Svigor , January 14, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT • 100 Words

    I don't think he can pardon her as she has not been convicted. He would have to grant her immunity from prosecution. I don't think that is in his enumerated powers.

    I looked into this recently, and apparently, the presidential pardon is not so limited by reason or logic. At least, it's not clear that it is.

    Dan Hayes , January 14, 2017 at 6:11 am GMT

    A minor but perhaps telling point. Loretta Lynch recently admitted that contrary to her previous denials, Hillary's emails and server were the subject of her infamous conversations with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac.

    [Jan 13, 2017] Reducing the cost of healthcare

    Jan 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 13, 2017 at 06:14 AM
    There are 3 ways we could reduce what we pay for health care:

    (1) Ending the oligopoly power of the health insurance companies;

    (2) Ending the doctor cartel;

    (3) Reducing the monopoly power of Big Pharma.

    Alas, the Republicans have no intention in doing any of this. So when they tell people they want to lower their costs, they are talking to rich people. The cost to the rest of us will go up if they have their way.

    Observer -> pgl... , January 13, 2017 at 07:12 AM
    From what I read, and recall from data Anne has posted a number of times, pharma costs are about 10% of total health care costs, and run about 2X EU average, or Canada, if we adopt that as a reference baseline. If we cut it in half, that would reduce our costs about 5%.

    Doctors fees (physicians and clinical services in this reference) are about 20%. I think you have mentioned before we pay about 2X typical EU wages. So if we cut that in half, it reduces our costs about 10%.

    Taken together, that's ~ 15% reduction. Not nothing, but in a few years of cost growth we are back to current cost levels.

    Do you see that differently?

    I don't have offhand figures for what insurance overhead runs. I think reducing that is probably the best argument for single payer, although comparisons to medicare overhead seem suspect (I'd expect much lower overhead percentages when much of your costs you are processing are $40K end of life hospital events vs. routine GP visits.) So one might zero out the profit, and reduce costs by having one IT/billing system. What's the scale of the opportunity here - another 15%?

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm

    anne -> Observer... , January 13, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/health-care-congress-vote-a-rama.html

    January 12, 2017

    Senate Takes Major Step Toward Repealing Health Care Law
    By THOMAS KAPLAN and ROBERT PEAR

    In its lengthy series of votes, the Senate rejected amendments proposed by Democrats that were intended to allow imports of prescription drugs from Canada, protect rural hospitals and ensure continued access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, among other causes....

    [Jan 12, 2017] Chuck Todd Excoriates Buzzfeed s Editor in Chief YOU PUBLISHED FAKE NEWS

    Jan 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Chuck Todd Excoriates Buzzfeed's Editor in Chief: 'YOU PUBLISHED FAKE NEWS'

    Rudolph Steiner Jan 12, 2017 3:17 PM

    You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like, from any credible or not credible person or organization on the planet, and then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The American Fourth Estate is beginning to look like a one flight up gentleman's parlor on old Times Square.

    inosent Jan 12, 2017 12:17 PM

    a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage. the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America, and Europe as well, has been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some serious resistance.

    dizzyfingers Jan 12, 2017 12:07 PM

    Isn't 99.99% of tv "news" fake? That's if you add in commercials... :-)

    worbsid Karl Marxist Jan 12, 2017 1:06 PM

    Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me, and every one else. Not that he is especially good at what he is supposed to be doing though. Tucker is much better.

    chunga Jan 12, 2017 10:56 AM

    Carlson blowing up Mark Ingram last night was pretty funny too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FZ6dJGoJ4

    [Jan 12, 2017] The Neocons declaration of war against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
    "... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
    "... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
    "... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
    "... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
    "... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
    "... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
    "... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
    "... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
    "... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
    "... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
    "... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
    "... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
    "... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
    "... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
    "... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
    "... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
    "... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
    "... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
    "... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
    "... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
    "... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
    "... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
    "... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
    "... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
    "... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
    "... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
    "... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump.

    It all began with CNN published an article entitled " Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him " which claimed that:

    Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

    The website Buzzfeed then published the full document . Here it is in full.

    When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly, there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example, such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.

    The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ."

    Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques. The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after "source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence agencies classify their sources.

    I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what they are talking about.

    This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.

    First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat.

    Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians, they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would make Trump a traitor, by the way.

    Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!

    Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him.

    Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump.

    All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.

    [Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage. Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.

    As I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their values and their country.

    In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.

    I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ".

    So please tell me I am wrong!

    (Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
    Seamus Padraig , January 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Looks like CNN and Buzzfeed got trolled hard by 4Chan: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/archived-posts-prove-4chan-trolled-cia-trump-golden-shower-story-entire-russian-hack

    dearieme ,January 11, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT

    If the pis-en-lit putsch fails, there will be another along in a minute. "Lock 'em up" is going to have to be applied by the thousands.

    @pyrrhus
    Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
    Enrique Ferro , January 11, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic, and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.

    His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.

    I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake.

    @Mikhailovich
    Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and the nationalisation of everything.

    Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.

    After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World.

    Robert Magill , January 11, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness make it almost a possibility.

    Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.

    One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer. Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll ..ForeverWar!

    Secret Plan: Your Eyes Only. Need-To-Know Established. Emergency use only! Not to be attempted until things are so bad nothing else is feasible.The basis of the Secret Plan is to use racism against racism. more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/how-our-republic-was-finally-rescued-from-itself-or/

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    @Lemurmaniac
    Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated - one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the common interest.
    Forbes , January 12, 2017 at 2:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    @Kyle McKenna
    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    Anon , January 12, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 100 Words

    Does blackmail work?

    Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting women around, and acting like some rapper thug?

    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.

    And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.

    BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?

    Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans have been spilled.

    PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.

    @Eagle Eye
    Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
    Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
    @Dr. X
    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
    Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
    The Alarmist , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    "There is no need to open Gulags ."

    There's still plenty of room at Gitmo, and it would only be fitting to bring the neocons face to face with their old friends and henchmen.

    Kyle McKenna , January 12, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Forbes
    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    @Anonymous
    "even a tad hysterical"

    it's anutha showa --

    Ned Resnikoff

    Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump

    Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

    I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

    But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."

    https://twitter.com/Thomasismyuncle/status/818117574466699264

    anon , January 12, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 100 Words

    I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen. The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.

    All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that. That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.

    Impeachment and Removal by CRS

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

    @Randal
    The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.

    There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.

    Miro23 , January 12, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT • 500 Words

    The Neocons' Declaration of War Against Trump,

    It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.

    So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.

    You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.

    Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity.

    Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive, since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives replaced.

    Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.

    Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests of the United States.

    Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.

    @alexander
    "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"


    "Exploited" Miro23 ?

    This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..

    Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......

    14,300,000 people.!

    That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.

    This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".

    Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...

    A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --

    This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.

    Its absolutely "mind -numbing"

    Its obscene.

    And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....

    BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
    TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
    WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".

    This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.

    Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.

    This cannot continue.

    The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.

    And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down on this....and they ain't gonna budge --

    Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --

    Enough is enough.

    Mikhailovich , January 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    "this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
    @squf
    No, "by design" would refer to the original document being hoaxed, not that Trump has complete control over the Cathedral's media wing.
    n230099 , January 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"

    One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program. But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon squad may be in error.

    Ram , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    " one of the parties here will be crushed."

    I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with very aggressive racial grievance agitation.

    The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match

    @george strong
    I hope you are correct. All decent white men have many scores to settle.
    Quartermaster , January 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT • 100 Words

    It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The "intelligent" community's big shots showed themselves to be intellectual whimpers. ,
    @Eagle Eye
    Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and credibility to this threadbare effort.

    The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.

    Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.

    On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper (mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness during depressive phases.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Dear Saker

    The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.

    CK , January 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true.
    Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.

    Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.

    Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.

    That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?

    @annamaria
    McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
    Che Guava , January 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.

    Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence' agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying

    It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
    .
    Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.

    They are cleary sn.

    If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
    . . .

    Anonymous , January 12, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis . It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows how to make a mess of things but not much else.

    I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.

    @annamaria
    "...incompetent CIA.."
    Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent professionals.
    Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
    @Realist
    "I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case."

    Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.

    DaveE , January 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    @CanSpeccy
    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    alexander , January 12, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT • 400 Words
    Agent76 , January 12, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

    They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!

    Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?

    @Realist
    Jeremy is wrong at least one thing. McCain is a member in good standing with the deep state. Just too stupid to be elected.
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind

    @Mikhailovich
    The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
    @anonymous
    They'd probably bite on anything.

    I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply not very bright.

    There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation you kind of have to.

    CanSpeccy , • Website January 12, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @DaveE
    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    Abelard Lindsey , January 12, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

    I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.

    I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.

    @anonymous
    So many options. Take a page from the leftists and block highways and ports -- but on a grand scale.

    Simply stop paying taxes. Stop funding the entire machine -- the sports, shops, colleges. Just stop it all.

    If there is a coup, it'll more than past time for it all to be stopped. It will be time to implode the whole thing and hit the reset button.

    Thales the Milesian , January 12, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    USA: numero uno!

    Every patriotic American should support president Trump, all the way.

    Long live President Trump!

    annamaria , January 12, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
    @Mikhailovich
    I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.

    @Mikhailovich
    The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.

    [Jan 12, 2017] Lessons From the Demise of the TPP naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The decision by the Obama administration to push ahead with the TPP may well have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency ..."
    "... No doubt. But the Wall St. Dems are going to keep blaming Bernie Bros and the Russians. And they'll keep helping themselves to that sweet corporate payola. ..."
    "... Talk about pushing ahead with TPP, this piece is jaw dropping. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/tpp-how-obama-traded-away_b_13872926.html?section=us_politics ..."
    "... I see it as karma. TPP may have been the worst thing ever tried by a US President, to date. I didn't realize that so many people understood it though, at least I didn't get that impression in central California. ..."
    "... And not just Hillary Clinton. The whole Democratic party. Obama has been a disaster for Democrats. There is a piece in the WAPO by Matt Stoller today discussing just this issue. ..."
    "... Excellent point. Basically will corporations pass along increased costs to consumers? ..."
    "... Take a look at what happened when the price of oil spiked. Corporations that had healthy profit margins in general didn't pass on to consumers their increased costs when oil was part of their COGS (cost of good sold). Though in contrast, airlines did. At the time Airlines had low profit margins. But I suspect their pricing power is less elastic regardless – their 10Ks show their entire business model is metric'd on the price of fuel. ..."
    "... Offshoring isn't about lower consumer goods prices. The cost of labor in a mass-produced product is small, often trivial. That's what mass production is designed to do. ..."
    "... The addiction to foreign trade is for the money in it. The importer doubles his money, the wholesaler doubles his money, the distributor doubles his money and the retailer gets what he can. The Chinese manufacturer is satisfied but most of the street cost goes to the intermediaries. ..."
    "... In this case, "sovereignty" means the power to regulate commerce. Insofar as the signatories are democracy, it also means democracy – the ability to carry out the decisions of representative bodies. ..."
    "... Countries without an internationally traded currency will not willingly sign up for specious 'trade in money' sections. Galbraith the Younger wrote a famous paper on the subject that clearly established there is no such thing as a trade in money. Every way I look at it, its a rip-off, facilitated by a useful idiot in the country's central bank. ..."
    "... ISDS is nothing more than a scheme to enable direct foreign attacks on the legislative process itself – even more direct and invasive than influencing elections by hacking, propaganda or whatever ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ... ... ...

    By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development. Originally published at Inter Press Service and cross posted from Triple Crisis

    President-elect Donald Trump has promised that he will take the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) on the first day of his presidency. The TPP may now be dead, thanks to Trump and opposition by all major US presidential candidates. With its imminent demise almost certain, it is important to draw on some lessons before it is buried.

    Fraudulent Free Trade Agreement

    The TPP is fraudulent as a free trade agreement, offering very little in terms of additional growth due to trade liberalization, contrary to media hype. To be sure, the TPP had little to do with trade. The US already has free trade agreements, of the bilateral or regional variety, with six of the 11 other countries in the pact. All twelve members also belong to the World Trade Organization (WTO) which concluded the single largest trade agreement ever, more than two decades ago in Marrakech – contrary to the TPPA's claim to that status. Trade barriers with the remaining five countries were already very low in most cases, so there is little room left for further trade liberalization in the TPPA, except in the case of Vietnam, owing to the war until 1975 and its legacy of punitive legislation.

    The most convenient computable general equilibrium (CGE) trade model used for trade projections makes unrealistic assumptions, including those about the consequences of trade liberalization. For instance, such trade modelling exercises typically presume full employment as well as unchanging trade and fiscal balances. Our colleagues' more realistic macroeconomic modelling suggested that almost 800,000 jobs would be lost over a decade after implementation, with almost half a million from the US alone. There would also be downward pressure on wages, in turn exacerbating inequalities at the national level.

    Already, many US manufacturing jobs have been lost to US corporations' automation and relocation abroad. Thus, while most politically influential US corporations would do well from the TPP due to strengthened intellectual property rights (IPRs) and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, US workers would generally not. It is now generally believed these outcomes contributed to the backlash against such globalization in the votes for Brexit and Trump.

    Non-Trade Measures

    According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics (PIIE), the US think-tank known for cheerleading economic liberalization and globalization, the purported TPPA gains would mainly come from additional investments, especially foreign direct investments, due to enhanced investor rights. However, these claims have been disputed by most other analysts, including two US government agencies, i.e., the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) and the US International Trade Commission (ITC).

    Much of the additional value of trade would come from 'non-trade issues'. Strengthening intellectual property (IP) monopolies, typically held by powerful transnational corporations, would raise the value of trade through higher trading prices, not more goods and services. Thus, strengthened IPRs leading to higher prices for medicines are of particular concern.

    The TPP would reinforce and extend patents, copyrights and related intellectual property protections. Such protectionism raises the price of protected items, such as pharmaceutical drugs. In a 2015 case, Martin Shkreli raised the price of a drug he had bought the rights to by 6000% from USD12.50 to USD750! As there is no US law against such 'price-gouging', the US Attorney General could only prosecute him for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme.

    "Medecins Sans Frontieres" warned that the agreement would go down in history as the worst "cause of needless suffering and death" in developing countries. In fact, contrary to the claim that stronger IPRs would enhance research and development, there has been no evidence of increased research or new medicines in recent decades for this reason.

    Corporate-Friendly

    Foreign direct investment (FDI) is also supposed to go up thanks to the TPPA's ISDS provisions. For instance, foreign companies would be able to sue TPP governments for ostensible loss of profits, including potential future profits, due to changes in national regulation or policies even if in the national or public interest.

    ISDS would be enforced through ostensibly independent tribunals. This extrajudicial system would supercede national laws and judiciaries, with secret rulings not bound by precedent or subject to appeal.

    Thus, rather than trade promotion, the main purpose of the TPPA has been to internationally promote more corporate-friendly rules under US leadership. The 6350 page deal was negotiated by various working groups where representatives of major, mainly US corporations were able to drive the agenda and advance their interests. The final push to seek congressional support for the TPPA despite strong opposition from the major presidential candidates made clear that the main US rationale and motive were geo-political, to minimize China's growing influence.

    The decision by the Obama administration to push ahead with the TPP may well have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency as she came across as insincere in belatedly opposing the agreement which she had previously praised and advocated. Trade was a major issue in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where concerned voters overwhelmingly opted for Trump.

    The problem now is that while the Obama administration undermined trade multilateralism by its unwillingness to honour the compromise which initiated the Doha Development Round, Trump's preference for bilateral agreements benefiting the US is unlikely to provide the boost to multilateralism so badly needed now. Unless the US and the EU embrace the spirit of compromise which started this round of trade negotiations, the WTO and multilateralism more generally may never recover from the setbacks of the last decade and a half.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© , January 11, 2017 at 11:49 am

    The decision by the Obama administration to push ahead with the TPP may well have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency

    No doubt. But the Wall St. Dems are going to keep blaming Bernie Bros and the Russians. And they'll keep helping themselves to that sweet corporate payola.

    Marley's dad , January 11, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Talk about pushing ahead with TPP, this piece is jaw dropping. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/tpp-how-obama-traded-away_b_13872926.html?section=us_politics

    B1whois , January 11, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    I see it as karma. TPP may have been the worst thing ever tried by a US President, to date. I didn't realize that so many people understood it though, at least I didn't get that impression in central California.

    Oregoncharles , January 11, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Lori Wallach doing a rather ironic victory dance. Worth spreading around the Dempologist sites: "here's the real reason."

    Left in Wisconsin , January 12, 2017 at 2:13 am

    Lori Wallach is no dummy. She should run for president in 2020. As a Democrat. No kidding. She is way better than Bernie. Said it here first.

    Jack , January 12, 2017 at 9:43 am

    And not just Hillary Clinton. The whole Democratic party. Obama has been a disaster for Democrats. There is a piece in the WAPO by Matt Stoller today discussing just this issue.

    Dave , January 11, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Not knowing what he does not know may be beneficial. To be freed from the straitjacket of political sophistry that has led to previous disasters for American workers is, perhaps, a positive.

    I'd be willing to pay twice as much for Chinese junk as I do now.

    Corporations, Hollywood, Big Pharma and Silicon Valley will be hurt? Tough luck, they are there to make profits and are no friend of American workers. Might as well say it, because of their behavior, they are the enemy of progress for workers.

    Short version:
    Trump has done more for American workers and has obtained more net benefit out of the car companies, before he's even sworn in than the Clintons did in ten collective years of 'public service'.

    a different chris , January 11, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    >I'd be willing to pay twice as much for Chinese junk as I do now.

    And I don't think you would even have to every time you can manage to look at what it costs* to make something in China instead of the USA, and compare it to the retail price, you get a real "whoa".** The price is just enough less to drive the US manufacturer themselves out of business, most of the money *does* stay in the US but it goes to the top 0.1%.

    This is more about control of the proles than economics, sometimes I think.

    *like anybody can totally figure it out given the Chinese state's involvement in everything, but we can make decent guesses

    **I know that American mfg cost is generally 1/2 of retail price and sometimes as low as 1/3. I'm talking about 1/10 to 1/20th for Chinese goods.

    djrichard , January 11, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    Excellent point. Basically will corporations pass along increased costs to consumers?

    Take a look at what happened when the price of oil spiked. Corporations that had healthy profit margins in general didn't pass on to consumers their increased costs when oil was part of their COGS (cost of good sold). Though in contrast, airlines did. At the time Airlines had low profit margins. But I suspect their pricing power is less elastic regardless – their 10Ks show their entire business model is metric'd on the price of fuel.

    scraping_by , January 11, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Offshoring isn't about lower consumer goods prices. The cost of labor in a mass-produced product is small, often trivial. That's what mass production is designed to do.

    It's more about dropping more of the top line to the bottom line. Along with the fake aristo disdain for wage earners that seems to be a requirement for corporate managers.

    Dave , January 11, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    That 35% tariff sure equals a lot of profits lost on cars made in Mexico. Therefore, they will be made in America. Due to the competitive nature of auto sales, the lack of interest in teenagers in buying cars, I think Detroit will not raise prices to match the labor cost difference. Also, there will be even less demand for U.S. made cars as most of the Mexican factories will possibly remain open for the Latin American market, which means even fewer exports of American made cars. A scarcity of markets means lower prices.

    RBHoughton , January 11, 2017 at 7:20 pm

    The addiction to foreign trade is for the money in it. The importer doubles his money, the wholesaler doubles his money, the distributor doubles his money and the retailer gets what he can. The Chinese manufacturer is satisfied but most of the street cost goes to the intermediaries.

    The Chinese governments interest for many years was simply receiving the foreign money payments and paying out the exchange in RMB.

    Phil , January 11, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Notwithstanding your comment about the Clintons:

    Trump hasn't done a thing for American workers. Indiana taxpayers (American workers) are on the hook for Carrier taking on roughly 700 jobs of the 2000 that Trump said he would "save". We don't even know the deep details of that "deal". If anyone thinks that Carrier signed off on that deal without the permission of Carrier's parent, United Technologies (a pure defense firm), I have a bridge to sell them. What future "deal" did the American taxpayer (worker) get subjected to when this "deal" was made behind closed doors to a defense contractor whose *only* means of revenue is from the American taxpayer (worker)?

    What about the citizens (workers) of Indiana who are going to carry the financial and social burden of the 1300 Carrier workers that Trump promised (early on in his campaign) whose jobs he would save. The carrier deal, in fact, was virtually the same deal that Pence had put on the table a year ago.

    United Technologies has *three* air conditioning brands; their Mexican lines are still open, and the 700 jobs that Trump said he "saved" are not committed to any kind of permanent status in the USA. Again, the Mexican manufacturing lines remain open, operating, and ready to accept those jobs when Carrier thinks it's appropriate.

    As for the auto companies? Please. Trump did NOTHING that wasn't already planned, or that wasn't already inspired by market forces and in the works.

    FORD on the cancelled Mexican plant:
    http://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2017/01/04/we-didnt-cut-a-deal-with-trump-ford-on-canceled-mexican-plant
    "'To be clear, Ford is still moving its production of small vehicles to Mexico. The Ford Focus will still be produced in Mexico, just at an existing Mexican plant instead of the canceled plant. "[T]he reason we are canceling our plant in Mexico, the main reason, is because we are seeing a decline in demand for small vehicles here in North America.."

    CHRYSLER-FIAT
    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/fiat-chrysler-smacks-down-trumps-boasts-president-elect-not-involved-in-companys-job-creation/
    "Jodi Tinson, a spokeswoman for FCA told ThinkProgress, "This plan was in the works back in 2015. This announcement was just final confirmation." Tinson also confirmed that neither politics nor the presidential election was at all related to the company's expansion"

    Trump is a fraud and an overt liar; he's a pure clinical narcissist who doesn't work for anyone but his frail ego – ever seeking out his next source of narcissistic supply – a supply he has been able to control from his early days from the happy accident of inherited wealth – going on from there to use his inheritance to enrich himself at the expense of others.

    Yes, American workers have been screwed over, but they have been screwed over mostly by Plutocrats who have owned both parties for decades. Ironically (in the face of all the anti-immigration talk), the vast majority of those Plutocrats have been *white, male* CEOs.

    Anyone looking at Trump's early appointments and Cabinet nominees – not to mentioned his unhinged comments and tweets – who is not scared stiff by the presence of this goon in the White House – is suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.

    different clue , January 11, 2017 at 8:50 pm

    Why would you be willing to pay twice as much for Chinese junk? Especially if it were still junk? If I were going to pay twice as much for something, I would rather that something be American not-junk rather than Chinese junk.

    bmiller , January 11, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    Given the reality that the most modern manufacturing capacity in the world is Chinese when it comes to consumer durables, it is racist to assume that "American" products are automatically better. The disinvestment in American manufacturing would take decades to replace.

    tegnost , January 11, 2017 at 10:12 pm

    last night listening to some folks opine re starbucks as a ubiquitous bad, the defense was they generally treat their employees ok, better than mcdonalds certainly, homeless people are given a little space before they get cleared out after a few hours if they are civil, which seemed to make the "striving to be good consumers, attempting to be socially responsible" lean towards well maybe they guessed it might be ok to go there. They all have i phones, however, and I didn't say it as I like my job, but was thinking "how many suicide nets does starbucks have in their global domain?" To call that racist makes me wonder about your comment, maybe if you had said is it racist, but no further, and in direct relation to that, china got manufacturing because suicide nets are a solution for apple that would not go over well around here. Maybe that's why they produce there, and not because the chinese are better at manufacturing?

    different clue , January 11, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    You can only play the race card but so many times before you wear it out. And it is pretty thin.

    I assume that American-made Science Diet dog food won't have poison in it the way I have to assume Chinese dog food may have. I assume that American-made sheet rock won't offgas sulfur dioxide gas which turns into sulfuric acid in moist air ( as in Florida), and destroys household appliances in a year or less. The way some Chinese high-sulfur sheetrock did at least once in Florida. I assume an American-made Oakland-Bay-Bridge at twice the price would not now be already having the decay and bad-build problems which the Cheap China Crap Construction bridge is already having.

    Shall I go on?

    You sound like a Free Trade Treason hasbarist for China. In fact, I think you are.

    You still want to call me racist? Well . . . kiss me, I'm deplorable.

    a different chris , January 11, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    >Trump's plan to enter into bi-lateral trade deals (after supposedly tearing up extant pacts)

    Well we never know what the frell he is actually going to do, sure can't judge by what he says. If he did start with and modifies "extant pacts", that would actually make a lot of sense and maybe even go decently well at a more-than-glacial speed.

    Of course – I hate when people speculate, and especially when they speculate that somebody is going to do literally the opposite of what they said they were going to do, yet here I am doing exactly that. My only excuse is that his personality is not to get that deep into anything, so it just seems more likely that he would simply focus on whatever specific aspect of a given treatry is problematical, wack a bit at that (for better or worse), and move on.

    Dude is going to make us all crazy.

    Ignacio , January 11, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Bi-lateral trade deals can focus on relatively narrow trade areas and in this case those needn't so much time to get negotiated and passed. I don't know if that is Trump's strategy.

    susan the other , January 11, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    This is a great summary of the recent fate of the TPP and the reasons for it. It may not be dead yet – even though it has been unceremoniously tossed on the cart of the dead (monty python). But the thinking behind it is terminal. Why no one ever discussed the military aspect of the TPP can be attributed to its strict secrecy. It was obvious to lots of people that the TPP was NATO for the Pacific and China was the target, and equally obvious that it was bad policy from any perspective. Bilateral trade will survive this debacle and world trade will continue – but trade will not be such a military tool, hopefully. It will be a good thing.

    different clue , January 11, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    It was not obvious to me. It is still not obvious to me. "China" was the excuse advanced for TPP late in the day when the Tradesters discovered that popular sentiment was turning against the Corporate Globalonial Plantationist purpose of the TPP, and hence against the TPP itself.

    Fiver , January 12, 2017 at 6:24 pm

    First, she is much closer to correct than you re the purpose of TPP. Secondly, why would you argue that the 'Tradesters' had to resort to 'China' in order to attempt to sell their putrid deal if 'China' was not viewed by said 'Tradesters' as a word loaded with a host of negative associations, most of which are based on typical US foreign policy jingoistic nonsense rooted in what is certainly a classic case of US/Western supremacist nonsense, if not the more obvious, overt racism now making a rather spectacular comeback?

    John k , January 11, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Lesson learned is to avoid electing corrupt candidates that call it a gold standard right away you know who is receiving, and who is paying, the gold.
    And then there are sitting elected officials pushing the crap with all their might, anticipating their gold shares maturing as soon as they leave office

    B1whois , January 11, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    Trade was a major issue in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where concerned voters overwhelmingly opted for Trump.

    Bravo! "Concerned voters" is a much better descriptor than "deplorables", "working class whites" or even, in this case, "working class voters" as there were also sovereignty issues.

    bmiller , January 11, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    The statistics show it was more the middle class and upper middle classes, especially evangelicals. Sexism played a big role.

    Outis Philalithopoulos , January 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    The wording of your comment is rather ambiguous – are you stating that "statistics show" that "sexism played a big role" in the swing states? Where do you situate yourself relative to Lambert's discussion of the subject?

    different clue , January 12, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    The sexism card is wearing about as thin as the racism card is wearing. Clinton lost support in the Midwest when she revealed herself to be a Free Trade Traitor against America by stating that she would put her husband, NAFTA Bill, in charge of the economic recovery when she got elected.
    That expression of support for anti-American Trade Treason guaranteed her loss right there.

    Statistics show . . . that figures lie when liars figure.

    Oregoncharles , January 11, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    " trade agreements take a long time to negotiate, typically because they also include services, and those take way longer to sort out than the physical goods side."
    My first reaction: good. Services shouldn't be in trade pacts. And if they take a long time to get done, all the better. The fetish for "trade pacts" is mostly destructive.

    Fundamentally: they're superfluous. People have always traded, mostly without "pacts." When it comes to "absolute advantage," literally trading apples for oranges, everybody really does benefit and barriers melt away. Under modern conditions. "comparative advantage" is a falsehood, as a close look at the conditions Ricardo set for it will show. It requires that labor and capital don't move at all freely between countries – true in his day, but certainly not in ours. Bizarrely, his theory is being used, dishonestly, to promote the destructive free movement of capital, and that's what "services" mostly means.

    The point that trade agreements take a long time is probably true, as well as not an objection; but it isn't an argument for multilateral agreements like the TPP; it's an argument for the WTO, if it had been done right. The plan was to set up an overarching, worldwide structure for trade. But it should have been done under the UN, and it shouldn't include attacks on sovereignty like the tribunals. The real reason for other agreements is that the requirement for consensus in the WTO put up a dead end sign: thus far, and no farther. So the "Washington Consensus" tried for work arounds. But the consensus model makes sense, and the rules should be universal.

    The real gist of Ricardo is that trade is NOT an unmitigated good. It easily becomes more or less subtle forms of imperialism. Furthermore, low trade barriers make sense. Diversity depends on barriers. They encourage a modicum of self-reliance and provide firewalls so that a financial collapse in one country doesn't automatically go world-wide. We probably had it right in the 50s and 60s, when the economy was far healthier. Granted, there were still a lot of actual colonies then, so it's hard to tell how that translates to modern conditions.

    I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't very familiar here. We should beware of capitalist ideologies.

    different clue , January 11, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    The fetish for Multilaterialism is also destructive. Multilateralism is just "french" for Corporate Globalonial Plantationist trade pacts designed to exterminate sovereignty for dozens of countries at a time.

    Oregoncharles , January 11, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    " Our colleagues' more realistic macroeconomic modelling suggested that almost 800,000 jobs would be lost over a decade after implementation, with almost half a million from the US alone. There would also be downward pressure on wages, in turn exacerbating inequalities at the national level."

    Yes, that's what these "trade agreements" are FOR. You don't think the PTB take bullshit economics seriously, do you?

    ChrisPacific , January 11, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    As an aside, I never particularly liked the sovereignty argument against TPP (which I note is omitted from this article) because I felt it painted with an overly broad brush. More specifically, I would argue that it can sometimes be a good thing if nation-states collectively agree to be bound by rules that supersede national legislation. The Geneva Convention is one example.

    TPP would have been bad not because it compromised national sovereignty, but because of the reasons for which it did so. Overriding national legislation to protect human rights is one thing. Overriding it to grant multinational corporations more power over workers, consumers and governments is quite another.

    marblex , January 11, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    I believe the sovereignty provisions are the most dangerous ones.

    witters , January 11, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    "I would argue that it can sometimes be a good thing if nation-states collectively agree to be bound by rules that supersede national legislation. The Geneva Convention is one example."

    There is the general point, and there is your example and there is the US: http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml

    Oregoncharles , January 11, 2017 at 8:28 pm

    In this case, "sovereignty" means the power to regulate commerce. Insofar as the signatories are democracy, it also means democracy – the ability to carry out the decisions of representative bodies.

    RBHoughton , January 11, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    The Pacific Rim countries might approve "needless suffering and death" if it keeps them in the west's good books.

    Countries without an internationally traded currency will not willingly sign up for specious 'trade in money' sections. Galbraith the Younger wrote a famous paper on the subject that clearly established there is no such thing as a trade in money. Every way I look at it, its a rip-off, facilitated by a useful idiot in the country's central bank.

    These agreements, whether global or bilateral, are an invitation to central bankers to become traitors to their own country; an attempt to take over a nation without firing a shot, a blast from a future that permits only trade blocks and no countries.

    I am convinced what the world really wants is a debate on the shape of world government. I do not agree that the chap with the most printed money calls the shots. We are better than that.

    Minnie Mouse , January 12, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    ISDS is nothing more than a scheme to enable direct foreign attacks on the legislative process itself – even more direct and invasive than influencing elections by hacking, propaganda or whatever . Imagine if Vladimir Putin were to accomplish a legislative objective in the U.S. simply by launching an ISDS extortion suit via a Russian state owned enterprise and a willing ISDS tribunal outside the U.S. court system and not at all accountable to U.S. interests. What would the pro TPP corporate Dems have to say then?

    different clue , January 12, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    Here's what they'd say.

    " Where's our money? We want our share of the Big Tubmans!"

    [Jan 12, 2017] I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
    Notable quotes:
    "... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
    "... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
    "... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
    "... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
    "... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
    "... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
    "... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
    "... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
    "... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
    "... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
    "... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
    "... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
    "... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
    "... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
    "... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
    "... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
    "... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
    "... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
    "... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
    "... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 06:57 AM
    The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.

    People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds.

    jeff fisher -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 10:10 AM
    I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story. People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it.

    People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 06:59 AM
    "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit."

    Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just partisan warfare.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:01 AM
    So leaks are good when Wikileaks do them but bad when intelligence officials do them?

    We know Trump will never be consistent, but you can try to have single standards.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:06 AM
    "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:28 AM
    "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit."

    CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 07:44 AM
    Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

    With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:50 AM
    Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.

    Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.

    Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid things you say by association.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges won't cut it.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:32 AM
    "We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield."

    via DeLong:

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/should-read-josh-marshall-_what-you-didnt-see_-what-may-be-the-most-significant-news-of-the-day-barely-made-a-ri.html#more

    Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of the day barely made a ripple...

    ...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented.... Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:34 AM
    "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 09:39 AM
    The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger.

    In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.

    In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach.

    Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:08 AM
    There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette. Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership before the Bush administration.

    We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 08:19 AM
    It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report. It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:40 AM
    "My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    "Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."

    I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in 2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it depresses turnout.

    Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM
    Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in.

    Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.

    Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick.

    jeff fisher -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 10:35 AM
    There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific.

    The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.

    We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost us for decades.

    Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems. The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.

    Peter K. -> jeff fisher... , January 12, 2017 at 10:42 AM
    Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom of the press.

    Simple as that.

    jeff fisher -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 11:02 AM
    That's too specific. Not a good campaign narrative. It is reasonably true.

    But remember, Putin is supporting awful right wing parties in various nations. It wasn't just Clinton.

    JohnH -> jeff fisher... , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around.

    Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.

    [Jan 12, 2017] And now bottom feeders from BBC join the chorus

    This Paul Wood. is very funny "I understand the CIA believes it is credible..." The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. But despite this Paul wood provided a good (albeit very dirty) hatchet job. Looks like neocons declared the open war on Trump. And as they are just a flavor of Trotskyites they are are capable of everything as they preach " the end justifies the means"... with their global neoliberal revolution under threat they can do as low as gangsters. Fake evidence is OK form in the best the "end justified the means" way.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele ..."
    "... As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information. ..."
    "... Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" ..."
    "... He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together". ..."
    "... The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries. ..."
    "... Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. ..."
    "... At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : January 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM , 2017 at 09:06 AM
    Adding the BBC's reporting on the compromising of Donald Trump to the above posts that got off-track, imo, from the issue

    "Theatre of the absurd"

    Took my breath away...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

    "Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?"

    By Paul Wood...BBC News...Washington...1-12-2017...47 minutes ago

    "Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life. The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they have come to light.

    The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.

    I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.

    Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele.

    As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.

    They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.

    The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape - if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.

    [Image of Trump's Tweet]

    Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Later, at his much-awaited news conference, he was unrestrained. "A thing like that should have never been written," he said, "and certainly should never have been released."

    He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together".

    The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.

    Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier to the FBI against the firm's advice.

    [Photo of Trump in Moscow, 2013 w/beauty contestants]

    And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by "the head of an East European intelligence agency".

    Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".

    'Be very careful'

    The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why - according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump himself.

    Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones as well as a mini-bar.

    At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.

    One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they might make.

    A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."

    Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.

    But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.

    Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid money to his campaign through his associates.

    Legal applications

    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

    "I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.

    Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

    It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

    The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

    Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

    Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

    A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

    I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.

    The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.

    Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.

    'Puppet'

    In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr Trump praises at every opportunity.

    "The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."

    The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing about the Fisa warrant.

    It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump - or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.

    If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump. Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if it exists).

    It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was foreshadowed during the campaign.

    During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton. "You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."

    In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.

    Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni durak" - a useful fool.

    The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration, they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow."

    [Jan 12, 2017] Democrats cant win until they recognize how bad Obamas financial policies were

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bill Clinton's generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the ideology of these "new" Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that ravaged the heartland. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : January 12, 2017 at 10:35 AM

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

    Democrats can't win until they recognize how bad Obama's financial policies were

    He had opportunities to help the working class, and he passed them up.

    By Matt Stoller January 12 at 8:25 AM

    During his final news conference of 2016, in mid-December, President Obama criticized Democratic efforts during the election. "Where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-sipping, you know, politically correct, out-of-touch folks," Obama said, "we have to be in those communities." In fact, he went on, being in those communities - "going to fish-fries and sitting in VFW halls and talking to farmers" - is how, by his account, he became president. It's true that Obama is skilled at projecting a populist image; he beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2008, for instance, partly by attacking agriculture monopolies .

    But Obama can't place the blame for Clinton's poor performance purely on her campaign. On the contrary, the past eight years of policymaking have damaged Democrats at all levels. Recovering Democratic strength will require the party's leaders to come to terms with what it has become - and the role Obama played in bringing it to this point.

    Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts. The resulting policy framework of Tim Geithner's Treasury Department was, in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power. The second was the administration's pro-monopoly policies, which crushed the rural areas that in 2016 lost voter turnout and swung to Donald Trump.

    Obama didn't cause the financial panic, and he is only partially responsible for the bailouts, as most of them were passed before he was elected. But financial collapses, while bad for the country, are opportunities for elected leaders to reorganize our culture. Franklin Roosevelt took a frozen banking system and created the New Deal. Ronald Reagan used the sharp recession of the early 1980s to seriously damage unions. In January 2009, Obama had overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, $350 billion of no-strings-attached bailout money and enormous legal latitude. What did he do to reshape a country on its back?

    First, he saved the financial system. A financial system in collapse has to allocate losses. In this case, big banks and homeowners both experienced losses, and it was up to the Obama administration to decide who should bear those burdens. Typically, such losses would be shared between debtors and creditors, through a deal like the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s or bankruptcy reform. But the Obama administration took a different approach. Rather than forcing some burden-sharing between banks and homeowners through bankruptcy reform or debt relief, Obama prioritized creditor rights, placing most of the burden on borrowers. This kept big banks functional and ensured that financiers would maintain their positions in the recovery. At a 2010 hearing, Damon Silvers, vice chairman of the independent Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the bailouts, told Obama's Treasury Department: "We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can't do both."

    Second, Obama's administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) referred criminal cases to the Justice Department and was ignored. Whistleblowers from the government and from large banks noted a lack of appetite among prosecutors. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder ordered prosecutors not to go after mega-bank HSBC for money laundering. Using prosecutorial discretion to not take bank executives to task, while legal, was neither moral nor politically wise; in a 2013 poll, more than half of Americans still said they wanted the bankers behind the crisis punished. But the Obama administration failed to act, and this pattern seems to be continuing. No one, for instance, from Wells Fargo has been indicted for mass fraud in opening fake accounts.

    Third, Obama enabled and encouraged roughly 9 million foreclosures. This was Geithner's explicit policy at Treasury. The Obama administration put together a foreclosure program that it marketed as a way to help homeowners, but when Elizabeth Warren, then chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, grilled Geithner on why the program wasn't stopping foreclosures, he said that really wasn't the point. The program, in his view, was working. "We estimate that they can handle 10 million foreclosures, over time," Geithner said - referring to the banks. "This program will help foam the runway for them." For Geithner, the most productive economic policy was to get banks back to business as usual.

    Nor did Obama do much about monopolies. While his administration engaged in a few mild challenges toward the end of his term, 2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to airlines, power has concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush's before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead, in the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.

    With these policies in place, it's no surprise that Thomas Piketty and others have detected skyrocketing inequality, that most jobs created in the past eight years have been temporary or part time, or that lifespans in white America are dropping . When Democratic leaders don't protect the people, the people get poorer, they get angry, and more of them die.

    Yes, Obama prevented an even greater collapse in 2009. But he also failed to prosecute the banking executives responsible for the housing crisis, then approved a foreclosure wave under the guise of helping homeowners. Though 58 percent of Americans were in favor of government action to halt foreclosures, Obama's administration balked. And voters noticed. Fewer than four in 10 Americans were happy with his economic policies this time last year (though that was an all-time high for Obama). And by Election Day, 75 percent of voters were looking for someone who could take the country back "from the rich and powerful," something unlikely to be done by members of the party that let the financiers behind the 2008 financial crisis walk free.

    This isn't to say voters are, on balance, any more thrilled with what Republicans have to offer, nor should they be. But that doesn't guarantee Democrats easy wins. Throughout American history, when voters have felt abandoned by both parties, turnout has collapsed - and 2016, scraping along 20-year turnout lows, was no exception. Turnout in the Rust Belt , where Clinton's path to victory dissolved, was especially low in comparison to 2012.

    Trump, who is either tremendously lucky or worryingly perceptive, ran his campaign like a pre-1930s Republican. He did best in rural areas, uniting white farmers, white industrial workers and certain parts of big business behind tariffs and anti-immigration walls. While it's impossible to know what he will really do for these voters, the coalition he summoned has a long, if not recent, history in America.

    Democrats have long believed that theirs is the party of the people. Therefore, when Trump co-opts populist language, such as saying he represents the "forgotten" man, it seems absurd - and it is. After all, that's what Democrats do, right? Thus, many Democrats have assumed that Trump's appeal can only be explained by personal bigotry - and it's also true that Trump trafficks in racist and nativist rhetoric. But the reality is that the Democratic Party has been slipping away from the working class for some time, and Obama's presidency hastened rather than reversed that departure. Republicans, hardly worker-friendly themselves, simply capitalized on it.

    There's history here: In the 1970s, a wave of young liberals, Bill Clinton among them, destroyed the populist Democratic Party they had inherited from the New Dealers of the 1930s. The contours of this ideological fight were complex, but the gist was: Before the '70s, Democrats were suspicious of big business. They used anti-monopoly policies to fight oligarchy and financial manipulation. Creating competition in open markets, breaking up concentrations of private power, and protecting labor and farmer rights were understood as the essence of ensuring that our commercial society was democratic and protected from big money.

    Bill Clinton's generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the ideology of these "new" Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that ravaged the heartland.

    As a result, while our culture has become more tolerant over the past 40 years, power in our society has once again been concentrated in the hands of a small group of billionaires. You can see this everywhere, if you look. Warren Buffett, who campaigned with Hillary Clinton, recently purchased chunks of the remaining consolidated airlines, which have the power not only to charge you to use the overhead bin but also to kill cities simply by choosing to fly elsewhere. Internet monopolies increasingly control the flow of news and media revenue. Meatpackers have re-created a brutal sharecropper-type system of commercial exploitation. And health insurers, drugstores and hospitals continue to consolidate, partially as a response to Obamacare and its lack of a public option for health coverage.

    Many Democrats ascribe problems with Obama's policies to Republican opposition. The president himself does not. "Our policies are so awesome," he once told staffers. "Why can't you guys do a better job selling them?" The problem, in other words, is ideological.

    Many Democrats think that Trump supporters voted against their own economic interests. But voters don't want concentrated financial power that deigns to redistribute some cash, along with weak consumer protection laws. They want jobs. They want to be free to govern themselves. Trump is not exactly pitching self-government. But he is offering a wall of sorts to protect voters against neo-liberals who consolidate financial power, ship jobs abroad and replace paychecks with food stamps. Democrats should have something better to offer working people. If they did, they could have won in November. In the wreckage of this last administration, they didn't.

    [Jan 11, 2017] Please do not let the door hit you on the ways out,

    Jan 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia , January 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    President Obama plans to offer a graceful goodbye to the nation in a prime-time address Tuesday night from Chicago, transferring executive power with the same tone of hope and optimism that powered his rise to the presidency

    I, too will offer a gracious (not graceful that mean something very different) goodby – Please do not let the door hit you on the ways out,

    followed by Cromwell's parting statement to the Rump Parliament, as pointed and relevant now as it was then:

    It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

    Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

    Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

    Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

    Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

    I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

    Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

    In the name of God, go!

    allan , January 10, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    Rahm Emanuel has a somewhat more nuanced take:

    Rahm Thanks Obama in Video Posted Before Farewell Address     [DNA Info]

    In the minute-long video, Emanuel spoke while framed by American and Chicago flags and as pictures of him with the president flashed through Obama's eight years in office.

    However, Emanuel urged those preparing for the speech not to be swept up in "nostalgia about the past" but to listen with "optimism and hope about the future."

    "Our work of keeping the dream of America and the promise of America is just beginning," Emanuel said. "We all have in this great country have a responsibility each day to take America a step closer to its ideal of what it can be and the promise of America."

    Surprising as it might be to Rahmbo, it's actually very easy not to be swept up in "nostalgia about the past".

    [Jan 09, 2017] Let the Clintons and Kagans define what is just peace and when we release the organized murder on small countries.

    Jan 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> EMichael...

    The past 2 months of the neocon babble machine trying to delegitimize the president elect is un-American.

    I define how Murkan I am not you. If you all democrats want your neocons to win in a coupe delegitimizing the PeOTUS step up!

    Take a half hour and read this:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

    my favorite line:

    "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."

    Let the Clintons and Kagans define what is just peace and when we release the organized murder on small countries.

    Reply Sunday, January 08, 2017 at 12:42 PM

    [Jan 09, 2017] Machiavelli on Modern Leadership Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are As Timely And Important Today As Five Centuries Ago Michael

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead, Ledeen comes across as mildly senile, and disappointingly arrogant. This book, while being a peaen to Machiavelli, attempts to draw glorious parallels between Machiavelli and big egos in the American pantheon of not-so-profound men, like Bill Gates, just one of the "figurines" Ledeen holds aloft like a boy playing with a superman doll. ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com
    This staunch neocon believed (or at least publicly promoted for personal gain) the theory that that all terrorist groups were financed by the USSR. H also was one of the key participant n yellow case scam (due to his connections in Italy), among other nefarious things. On a positive side he is a good contract bridge player.
    stars By Daft Lundquist on August 28, 2006 Format: Paperback
    Another gem in Mike's crown of imperial psuedo-scholarship

    " Much has been hyped of the neocon propensity for Straussian deception and omission -- the kind supposedly justified by a transcendent moral calculus -- and the parallels between this imperative, its rationales, and Machiavelli's logic all bear a "family resemblance". Nevertheless, Mike Ledeen has rarely come across as diabolical, not even when covering a genius famous for his explication of the darker side of statecraft.

    Instead, Ledeen comes across as mildly senile, and disappointingly arrogant. This book, while being a peaen to Machiavelli, attempts to draw glorious parallels between Machiavelli and big egos in the American pantheon of not-so-profound men, like Bill Gates, just one of the "figurines" Ledeen holds aloft like a boy playing with a superman doll.

    In the section 'How to Rule,' on page 117, Ledeen writes "Since it is the highest good, the defense of the country is one of those extreme situations in which a leader is justified in commiting evil" -- the book is filled with passages like these, reminiscent of Strauss's maxim of "the noble lie", then interwoven with factual innacuracies (such as Ledeen's claim that Gates "invented" the Basic programming language).

    I remember the fiasco around another book Ledeen wrote back in the eighties, one that claimed to uncover a vast world-wide global conspiracy by the Soviet Union. In the book, Ledeen claimed to have evidence that every terrorist group around the world was actually controlled by the USSR: so Abu Nidal and the IRA both collected their paychecks from the same paymaster, etc. As it turned out, the book fooled everyone for a while, including William Casey and Ronald Reagan, until the CIA black ops guys who had been planting these stories in European publications since the sixties finally admitted that they created that myth as part of a black-propaganda campaign.

    This would have been funny if Ledeen had not been working in government at the time. Coincidentally, Ledeen was also working in Doug Feith's Office of Special plans -- the DoD project that fabricated Bush's case for war -- before we invaded Iraq in 2003. Whether intentional or accidental, this guy's innacuracies are just scary.

    Read this is you like to study these men, but avoid this book if your interest is in Machiavelli as a historical figure.

    [Jan 08, 2017] Interests of some dwarf European states might be sacrificed to pull Russia from alliance with China. Nothing personal, just business

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is probably very similar to very cunning efforts for preventing alliance between Russia and Germany by British empire. In general the current USA policy toward Russia has British roots. ..."
    "... And as for your utter naivety about respect, as Machiavelli pointed out, respect is not everything. Fear might be good substitute. And the US neocons understand this very well. ..."
    "... As Michael Ledeen put it "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business..." (Ledeen doctrine). ..."
    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc -> ilsm... January 07, 2017 at 08:02 PM

    Trump is making nice with Putin but he's picking fight with Mexico on our border, China, and North Korea.

    By making nice with Putin and Russia PE Trump puts our long term traditional Allies in Europe, especially those that border Russian, on notice that they will not be protected by the USA to the extent in the past which opens them up to Russian political and business pressures/extortion as well as weakening the ties that bind them to us.

    Of course, all that rebalanced geopolitics means no nation in future will trust the USA in the same way again in politics, business, trade, or global security.

    You may like Trump upsetting the apple cart that has been carefully built by successive President's since WWII but I doubt most Americans will or do.

    Libezkova -> im1dc... January 07, 2017 at 10:03 PM

    You need to understand that splitting alliance of Russia and China is probably strategically important for the USA neoliberal elite then anything else.

    In this sense Trump just want to end the blunders of Obama foreign policy which made rapprochement of Russia and China possible, or even inevitable. The problem is that after Ukraine Russia does not trust the USA. On any level. Attitude now is probably much worse then it was during years of Cold War. Even bitter enemies of Putin now curse the Obama administration using the last words.

    In other words, what Obama did with his Ukrainian adventure is eliminated any (as in zero) internal opposition to Putin inside the country. Such a blowback, in CIA terms.

    So much for Nobel Peace Price winner foreign policy achievements (Iran "lifting sanctions" gambit is still standing as one).

    This is probably very similar to very cunning efforts for preventing alliance between Russia and Germany by British empire. In general the current USA policy toward Russia has British roots.

    Like French say: "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" (on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des śufs )

    So interests of some dwarf European states might be sacrificed to pull Russia from alliance with China. Nothing personal, just business.

    And as for your utter naivety about respect, as Machiavelli pointed out, respect is not everything. Fear might be good substitute. And the US neocons understand this very well.

    As Michael Ledeen put it "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business..." (Ledeen doctrine).

    ilsm -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 05:27 AM , 2017 at 05:27 AM
    Couple of observations:

    Russia and China did not come together during the cold war against the US empire, big difference today is the potential for trade cooperation on a Beijing Moscow Madrid (with a branch to Tehran) axis.

    That observation aside; a huge enemy is good for the US' military industry complex; businesses whose minimum returns are over 6% and assured by political influence.

    There is money to be made pushing the Bear and the Dragon into a corner.

    The Queen Empresses workers were protecting all that exploited labor in India. The Royal Navy and coaling stations kept the sea routes open

    [Jan 08, 2017] US funded lesser al Qaeda in Syria at least since 5 years.

    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm said in reply to Jay... US funded lesser al Qaeda in Syria at least since 5 years.

    The US Russia thing is parallel to the Sunni Shiite thing where Iran is reluctantly pushed toward Moscow bc the CIA remains vengeful over the CIA's Shah deposed in 1979.

    US funding in Syria is consistent with Gulf Coop Council actions there and in Yemen, using US provided cluster weapons.

    The phony reason Obama did Qaddafi was Hollande threatened the French would do it.... of course the French could maybe get 2 sorties off a day for 3 days! Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 10:58 AM ilsm said in reply to kthomas... Exceptionalism justifies horror!

    The F-111's killed one of Qaddafi's daughters (by a wife of many) for that one and the Berlin club!

    US vengeance worth giving entire countries over to al Qaeda.

    Exceptional we can incinerate the world!

    [Jan 07, 2017] War conflict is not a chess game like many neocon chicenhawks assume.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority. ..."
    "... In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary. ..."
    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Libezkova -> pgl... January 06, 2017 at 05:09 PM

    Why don't you just buy m16, some ammunition and go to Syria to prove your point and take revenge for Hillary fiasco.

    Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority.

    In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary.

    War conflict is not a chess game.

    [Jan 07, 2017] Heres How Many Bombs Obama Dropped In 2016

    Jan 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Seven years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having been in office for less than one year and having pretty much no actual, tangible foreign diplomacy accomplishments at the time, President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.

    [Jan 07, 2017] Obama already proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is change we can believe in bait and switch Maestro

    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    sanjait : , January 06, 2017 at 03:53 PM
    Hard to tell if this is something new in scope or if it was always thus.

    Certainly politicians have always lied, exaggerated and made big shows of trivial symbolic things.

    I don't think Trump is unique in doing this.

    Trump is perhaps unique though in doing NOTHING ELSE.

    Libezkova -> sanjait... , January 06, 2017 at 05:00 PM
    You are too quick to judge. Trump will become POTUS only on 20th.

    But Obama already proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is "change we can believe in" bait and switch Maestro. That's his legacy and he can't change it.

    What a horrible, brazen betrayer of his voters he proved to be. 100% neoliberal "wolf in sheep's clothing" ...

    Pretty bright student of Bill Clinton. The same "they have nowhere to go" attitude to working people and lower middle class.

    Libezkova -> Libezkova... , January 06, 2017 at 05:06 PM
    But in reality they have a place to go: they went to far right nationalistic movements.

    In this sense Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are godfathers of the US far right renaissance. Barack actually did the same trick in Ukraine, so this is his double "success". And the major legacy.

    But wait till 2020 and the situation might become very interesting indeed. Especially if there will be no revival of economics that Trump promised.

    Libezkova -> Libezkova... , -1
    And don't forget his romance with "Muslim brotherhood" (and his role in the creation of ISIS) as well as his Libya and Syria adventures.

    [Jan 05, 2017] The Democratic Party nomenklatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform. ..."
    "... At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions. ..."
    "... I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson. ..."
    Jan 05, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : Reply Thursday, January 05, 2017 at 08:16 AM
    The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform.

    For a while we had the Russian hacking accusations, which have suddenly gone dormant (will we ever get proof?). Now we have divide and conquer identity issues. But no proposed alternatives to Trump for curing our economic malaise along the lines suggested by Sanders.

    We are headed back to business as usual, with the right fighting the so-called center left (our two neoliberal factions) for dominance. Apparently conditions have not deteriorated enough yet for a populist uprising. How much more does it take before we reach a critical mass?

    Dan Kervick -> RGC... , January 05, 2017 at 10:07 AM
    Some change is happening. Even Cuomo is now seeking the seal of approval from Bernie for supporting a new college tuition plan for families making less than $125,000.

    It's going to be a slow process though. There is a group within the Democratic Party that is on the way out historically, and they want to do nothing other than turn the Party's politics into nothing but vendettas, distraction and obstruction.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , January 05, 2017 at 10:14 AM
    This is classic Cuomo. Give a bit to the right - then a bit to the left. Of course the ultra-rich Uppity East Siders are whining we can't afford this while the Green Party is upset it does not also cover food and rent. You can't win in NYC politics no matter what you do.
    Peter K. : , January 05, 2017 at 08:20 AM
    From Thomas Edsall's NYTimes column:

    " At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions.

    Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does it wait for internecine conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies fulfill campaign promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?"

    It's funny how there has been no discussion of the DNC chair contest, and yet the progressive neoliberals here still whine that the forum isn't an echo chamber which reflects their views. And then they fantasize about banning people with whom they disagree.

    Denis Drew : , January 05, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    State governments famously (or infamously) give away billions in tax breaks to lure in firms that make jobs. 19 Republican governors -- by rejecting Medicaid expansion -- have rejected TAKING IN federal tax money to generate good medical jobs, not to mention the multiplier effect of new spending ...

    .. and it's the states' own money that they sent to the federal government that they don't want to TAKE BACK ...

    ... oh, almost forgot; it's good for uninsured poor people too (almost forgot about that).

    pgl -> Denis Drew ... , January 05, 2017 at 09:05 AM
    Nice point. My DINO governor (Cuomo) was smart enough to take the Medicaid funding but he gives all sorts of stupid supply-side breaks to businesses.
    im1dc -> pgl... , January 05, 2017 at 09:30 AM
    I am under the belief that Gov. Cuomo and NY Governers generally give those tax breaks to keep businesses from moving to lower tax States.

    Am I wrong to believe that NY State is a High Tax State compared to those in the South?

    pgl -> im1dc... , January 05, 2017 at 09:38 AM
    Yes but he is given them a complete tax holiday.
    JF -> pgl... , January 05, 2017 at 09:38 AM
    There was a reason why the Annapolis Convention that led almost directly to the Constitutional convention was organized on the need to stop interjurisdictional competition in the favoring of commercial interests so as to favor uniform commerce rules across the US, should the national legislature exercise on the matter.

    I sure like competition, recognize the federal system as a having great socio-political value, even appreciate non-uniformity until it grabs the attention of more thoughtful view (experimentation), but more and more I think Congress should enact the law to proscribe these crony actions by States. Many politicians, and I've worked with many at the State level would appreciate it if these pandering and favoring pleadings just went away.

    Peter K. : , January 05, 2017 at 08:39 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/business/economy/federal-reserve-minutes-interest-rates.html

    Fed Officials See Faster Economic Growth Under Trump, but No Boom

    By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
    JAN. 4, 2017

    "Ms. Yellen has warned that fiscal stimulus, like a tax cut or a spending increase, could increase economic growth to an unsustainable pace in the near term, resulting in increased inflation. The Fed quite likely would seek to offset such policies by raising interest rates more quickly."

    Progressive neoliberalism...

    And Alan Blinder said Hillary's fiscal plans wouldn't be large enough to cause the Fed to alter its path of rate hikes.

    And Trump promised more better infrastructure like clean airports.

    And Trump won.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 08:41 AM
    I'm now thinking that Trump will have conflict with the Fed.

    He lives for conflict and drama.

    pgl : , January 05, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    An update on the Chevy Cruze controversy. US consumption was 194,500 vehicles with 190,000 made here in the US. That's 97.7% of them being produced locally. Tweet that.
    Peter K. : , January 05, 2017 at 09:30 AM
    http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/01/the-early-days.html

    THURSDAY, JANUARY 05, 2017

    The Early Days

    I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson.

    by Atrios at 09:30

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 09:31 AM
    who paid for Hillary Clinton's speeches?
    JF -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 09:45 AM
    Can you spend time on the republicans too? Just asking for a little balance. You and I both share a dismay about the last eight years and the presidential campaign. Your energy focused on the party in power now, even a bit, would probably be helpful.

    [Jan 03, 2017] Building Totalitarianism in Europe – The Last Coup of Victoria Nuland by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State, did not spend much time and energy with Christmas and New Year celebrations this year. She has another very urgent and pressing problem to solve, before leaving the State Department, and this is the "Cyprus conflict". The way she wants to solve this conflict is by transforming a second member of the EU, after Greece, into a protectorate. As the proposed solution for Cyprus is higlhy unstable, powers outside the EU will be provided also with a bomb inside it, that is with the possibillity of provoking a Bosnian-type conflict inside, not outside EU borders.

    In the same time she wants also to get Turkey admitted immediately to the EU, by the window of the "Cypriot settlement". By virtue of the provisions of the "Cyprus settlement" under consideration now, Turkey is invested after January 12 with many of the rights and powers (and none of the obligations) of the member-states. It will also legalize in Geneva, its military presence and its right to intervene militarily inside the European Union.

    Such an outcome of the Geneva conference will have enormous strategic consequences for Europe and for the Middle East, transforming the whole "Eastern Meditarranean", a sea lane of vital importance, into a kind of "Mare Nostrum" of the "Naval Forces", excluding from there any "foreign" strategic influence (German, Russian or Chinese) and laying one more foundation for encircling Russia from the South with a kind of "security belt" and trying to hinder its access to the "warm seas", a centuries long dream of British imperial planners. It will constitute the deeper change of the Mediterranean strategic landscape, since the eruption of the so-called Eastern Question or, at least, since the Greek national revolution, two centuries ago.

    Annan Plan – Creating a Frankestein "state" in Cyprus

    The type of settlement Mrs. Nuland wants to impose on Cyprus is a new version of the Annan Plan, rejected by the overwhelming majority of Cypriots during the 2004 referendum, in spite of enormous pressure they had suffered and a real terror campaign against them, warning the day of Doom would come on the aftermath of a No vote. The Annan Plan is violating all essential provisions of European, International and Constitutional Law, including the UN Charter. In the light of its provisions, it represents the most comprehensive effort undertaken, since the defeat of Nazism, in 1945, to impose a totalitarian system in any western country.

    The Annan plan is instituting a kind of Frankestein state in Cyprus, where, among other things, the rule of majority (democracy) will be formally abolished, where there will be permanent vetos of the two Cypriot communities in every level of decision making and in all branches of power (executive, legislative, judicial), and, in the very probable case that system would be brought to an impasse, foreign judges will decide everything. In reality, the new "state" will be governed by foreign judges, concentrating upon themselves, three centuries after Montesqieu, all powers.

    The solution provides for imposing to the new "state" a complete disarmament status, that is forbid it from the right of self-defense and the means to exercise it (an army). And do it in a permanent terms, not as a temporary measure, as it happened with Germany and Japan after the 2kd World War. In Orwellian terms, this is called "Cyprus demilitarized". In reality there will be many traffic problems there provoked, because of the military vehicles of Britain, Turkey, other NATO countries and Police cars from various "Christian and Muslim countries" which will be present there. Britain and Turkey will have the legal right to intervene militarily inside a territory of the European Union.

    "Fuck" Referendums

    Mrs. Nuland does not want to wait for any referendum. She knows that she can hardly win a second referendum in Cyprus (or in any other European country these times) on such terms. She has no time, she leaves the State Department on the 20th of January and she wants to end her career with a triumph, that is succeeding where MacMillan, Johnson, Kissinger, Bush, Annan, before her, failed miserably. There are also more essential reasons she wants to solve (or to create?) now this problem. Both the Greek and the European crises may enter a new and more dramatic phase next year. As for the Middle East, adjacent to Cyprus, it is waiting now for a Big Deal or a Big War.

    The only way to do what she wants, in order to circumvent the provision for a referendum, is to have the President of Cyprus Mr. Anastasiades and the leader of Turkish Cypriots Mr. Akinci sign all that, or as much as they can of that. Then, Mr. Tsipras, Mr. Erdogan and Mrs May will endorse them and they will do something else also, legalize the Turkish military presence inside the European Union for some indefinite, as we write period. Mr. Yuncker plans also to be there to applaud all that in the name of the European Union. The State Department has already warned the US Congress to be ready to adopt bills on Cyprus and the Commission altered all its programs for January 12. That day, CNN will announce to all the world that the Cyprus conflict has already been solved. When people will realize what happened, and they will begin to tear their hairs, there will be no Obama or Nuland to answer any questions. (And maybe that arranges many more people than one can figure out)

    Mr. Anastasiades has already agreed to all that, Mr. Tsipras is under pressure also to agree. Mr. Yuncker, Mrs. May and Mr. Erdogan already agreed. There remain some serious differences still on the composition of the Conference which remain to be settled as we write this article.

    And the referendum? you will probably ask. Ok, they will promiss to make two referendums, one for the Greeks and one for the Turkish Cypriots. Maybe they will do them, but only if they are sure of the result. Anyway, even if those referendums take place, they will not have much sense, as it will be impossible for the inhabitants to return to the status quo ante. The Republic of Cyprus as we know it will be dead and the Turkish military presence on the island legal. As for the voters they will be in front of the choice to accept after all what is too late to change or risk a chaotic situation, if they refuse it post factum.

    Is anything of all that legal?

    Is all that legal? No, nothing here is legal. (Look to the appendix 1, for the opinion of the Honorary President of the International Association of Constitutional Law, Professor Kasimatis). On the contrary they represent a coup d' etat stricto sensu and in two ways. They constitute the most serious possible breach of the constitutional order of the Republic of Cyprus and of the Treaties of the European Union, as Cyprus is a member of this Union.

    No international conference and not even the President of Cyprus himself (or, for that matter, the Greek PM) has any right to sign agreements that infringe on the sovereignty of the Cypriot state (like for instance legalizing the Turkish military presence on the island, when numerous UN resolutions ask for the immediate withdrawal of Turkish forces, which invaded the island in 1974). Even more, nobody, including the President of Cyprus, has the right to change the constitutional structure of his state, much more, abolish it altogether! If they do it, it would be a coup d' etat, in the strict legal sense of the word, that is a serious breach of the constitutional order of the Republic of Cyprus and, as this Republic is also a full member of the European Union, of the Treaties of the EU. Such things would be probably legal, only if we were living still under a medieval regime of absolute monarchies, not in Europe in 2016.

    The whole Geneva conference reminds us very much of what happened in Vichy, France, on the 10th of July 1940, when the French National Assembly invested, with an overwhelming majority, Marshal Petain with constituent powers. In spite of the fact that even it was the National Assembly itself which took this decision, everything Petain did was considered a coup d' etat and, inspite of being a hero of the First World War, he was condemned to death after the liberation of France. Charles De Gaulle has become what he became, in the history of France and of the world, because he refused to recognize this, supposedly legal coup, by the French deputies and Petain and fought against it.

    In Cyprus, unlike Petain, Mr. Anastasiades not only did not get an authorization of his parliament for what he is doing, he even refused a demand of the opposition for an urgent debate.

    The purpose of Geneva: Destroy Cyprus as a sovereign, democratic and independent state

    By the way and until some weeks ago, all Cypriot and Greek governments since 1974 refused the Turkish proposal to convene such a conference, claiming that the only thing they could discuss about Cyprus with Turkey, was the withdrawal of the Turkish troops which invaded the island and remained there in spite of UN resolutions calling for their immediate withdrawal.

    But this was until December 1st. That day, Mr. Anastasiades has announced to his citizens that he is accepting the proposal without explaining much why he is doing it, what will be the purpose and the agenda of this strange conference. He did not consult with political parties in the island or the Greek government before announcing his decision. The most absolute confusion was reigning in the island, until December 27, when the leader of the Turkish Cypriots Mr. Akinci, speaking to the Turkish Cypriot media, probably to warn Anastasiades not to deviate from what they had already agreed in secret, explained a little bit what will happen in Geneva.

    According to what he said the Republic of Cyprus will not be present in the Geneva conference. All documents there will be signed by the "new Cyprus federation to be constituted". In that way he revealed the real purpose of the operation, which is no other than to abolish the existing state in Cyprus (we repeat, a member of UN and the EU) and to create a new one, without asking the opinion of the citizens, without electing a Constitutional Assembly and without any authorization from anybody to do that. In that case, we don't speak even about an operation of regime change. We have to speak about "country change".

    A Greek Cypriot politician who is friend of Mr. Akinci answered to him explaining that he better avoid much public talk.

    The citizens of the Republic themselves are now in a state of complete shock, as they cannot believe that they will live in another state by January 12, they know nothing about it! Cyprus has a tradition of invasions and coups, but it is difficult still for the citizens to grasp the new and unbelievable reality that their own President is planning to sign the death of his own state! It is very difficult, psychologically and intellectually, to stop believing that Mr. Anastasiades is not their leader (even if some they may consider his as bad, wrong, corrupted or incompetent), but he is their killer!

    If the Cyprus thing succeeds it will in itself represent a colossal advancement of new political technologies. The trick is simple and genious. For a rape to be recognized as a rape, the victim has to resist and denounce the rapist. But here the rapist and the person charged with denouncing the rape is the same, the President of the Republic.

    The Greek factor

    Anastasiades himself is the most powerful weapon US ever had in Cyprus. But Mrs Nuland has also another very powerful weapon and this is the situation in Greece, the confusion and the dependence of Greek political forces. The cooperation of Greece to this operation is deemed absolutely necessary for political reasons.

    Mr. Tsipras in Athens, is now under enormous US pressure to give his consent and in a very difficult condition otherwise. SYRIZA is characterized also by a huge confusion regarding the Cyprus conflict. The Greek economy and society are very much into a death spiral, and the PM seems to be to the absolute mercy of Creditors, including the IMF. The German government nearly declared war against Greece, when his government decided, on the eve of Christmas, to give some financial peanuts to very poor Greek pensioners in a very real danger for their life and respecting the discipline of the program imposed to Greece (against the will of its people). The Finance Minister had to send a humiliating letter, promising more pension cuts in the next year, in order to get an armistice from Scheuble. If all that was not enough, Mr. Erdogan is threatening to fluid Greece with new waves of refugees.

    From Petain to Yeltsin – what is a coup d' etat

    Let us come back at this point to the term coup d' etat we used. Maybe the readers are associating this with tanks and machine guns. Concerning the use of weapons they have to be a little patient. They will hear most probably their noise (as they heard it from Kiev), but they have first to wait until the Geneva operation succeeds and if it succeeds. But a coup d' etat has nothing to do with the means used. It has to do with the breach of the constitutional (and European in our case) order of a given state.

    Maybe the readers will also question if a head of a given state can make himself or participate in a coup d' etat against his own state. Not only he can, he is a thousand times more effective if he chooses to do it, as the only thing he has to do is use and abuse the powers he already legally possesses and can use. For example, the legal head of the Greek state, King Constantin, has participated in a US-backed coup d' etat against the constitutional order of his own state in 1967, by legalizing the government of the Colonels.

    The same thing was done by the head of the Russian state Boris Yeltsin in 1991, when he dissolved the USSR and in October 1993, when he bombed his own Parliament, if we examine those events from the point of view of soviet and Russian constitutional order. But nobody in the West has noticed of course this legal aspect of things, as westerners liked very much what Yeltsin did. We refer to this example, because it bears great analogies to what they are trying to do now in Cyprus.

    Appendix – Professor Kasimatis on the legal aspect of the Geneva Conference

    We asked the top Greek specialist on Constitutional Law and Honorary President of the International Association of Constitutional Law, Professor Yiorgos Kasimatis, about what and what is not legal for this Geneva conference to do. This is his opinion:

    "The Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognized as a full sovereignty state, by its admission to the United Nations and to the European Union. Nobody, including the President of Cyprus, the Greek PM or any international conference are entitled to take any decisions infringing, directly or indirectly, upon the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus or alter its constitutional structure. If they do it, it will be a very serious violation of both the Cyprus constitution and of the Treaties of the European Union. Only a constitutional assembly or the citizens themselves via a referendum, are entitled to adopt such measures. The only subject an international conference could discuss is how to apply the UN resolutions asking for the immediate withdrawal of Turkish occupation forces and the full restoration of the sovereignty of the Republic. It is not legal to connect or depend those international obligations, directly or indirectly, on any constitutional changes in the country. On the contrary, all third parties have the obligation to abstain from any actions or declarations, much more from signing any documents, which constitute a direct or indirect infringement upon the right of Cypriot citizens to decide by their own free will on the fundamentals of their state structure and on the international status of the Republic. All parties should do everything in their power to assure to the Cypriots the conditions for the free expression of their will, without any threats, blackmails, pressures, faits accmplis etc."

    (*) Journalist and writer. He worked as an advisor on East-West Relations and Arms Control in the office of Greek PM Andreas Papapndreou (1985-88) and he was the chief correspondent of the Greek news agency ANA in Moscow (1989-99). He collaborated with Michel Pablo in launching the international review for self-management Utopie Critique. He has been a member of the Central Committee and the Secretariat and of the Committee on Foreign Policy of SYRIZA. He stopped having any relations with SYRIZA in July 2015.

    [Jan 02, 2017] Angela Merkel To Skip Davos Amid Blowback Against Global Elite Zero Hedge

    Jan 02, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Last week we were surprised to learn that demand for hotel rooms at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, where the world's billionaires, CEOs, politicians, celebrities and oligarchs mingle every year (while regaled by their public relations teams known as the "media", for whom getting an invite to the DJ event du jour is more important than rocking the boat by asking unpleasant questions) was so great, not only are hotel rooms running out, but local employees may be put up in shipping containers in car parks to free up much needed accommodations.

    This scramble to attend what has traditionally been perceived as the hangout for those who have benefited the most from "peak globalization" was in some ways surprising: coming after a year in which "populism" emerged as a dominant global force, while sending establishment politics, legacy policies and even globalization reeling, the message - in terms of lessons learned from 2016 - sent to the masses from the world's 0.1% was hardly enlightened.

    However, while most Davos participants remain tone deaf, one person has gotten the message loud and clear.

    According to Reuters , German Chancellor Angela Merkel - who faces a crucial election this year as she runs for her 4th term as German chancellor amid sagging approval ratings - is steering clear of the World Economic Forum in Davos, a meeting expected to be dominated by debate over the looming presidency of Donald Trump "and rising public anger with elites and globalization", which is ironic because just two years prior, the topic was rising wealth inequality which the world's billionaires blasted, lamented and, well, got even richer as nothing at all changed. What is surprising about Merkel's absence in 2017 is that the Chancellor has been a regular at the annual gathering of political leaders, CEOs and celebrities, traveling to the snowy resort in the Swiss Alps seven times since becoming chancellor in 2005. But her spokesman told Reuters she had decided not to attend for a second straight year.

    This year's conference runs from Jan. 17-20 under the banner "Responsive and Responsible Leadership". Trump's inauguration coincides with the last day of the conference.

    "It's true that a Davos trip was being considered, but we never confirmed it, so this is not a cancellation," the spokesman said.

    Reuters adds that this is the first time Merkel has missed Davos two years in a row since taking office over 11 years ago and her absence may come as a disappointment to the organizers because her reputation as a steady, principled leader fits well with the theme of this year's conference.

    There was little additional information behind her continued absencea the government spokesman declined to say what scheduling conflict was preventing her from attending, nor would it say whether the decision might be linked to the truck attack on a Berlin Christmas market that killed 12 people in mid-December.

    The reason for her absence, however, may be far more prosaic: as Reuters echoes what we said previously, "after the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Trump were attributed to rising public anger with the political establishment and globalization, leaders may be more reluctant than usual to travel to a conference at a plush ski resort that has become synonymous with the global elite. "

    Another potential complication is that this year's Davod event concludes just hours before Trump's inauguration. As a result, one European official suggested to Reuters that "the prospect of having to address questions about Trump days before he enters the White House might also have dissuaded Merkel, whose politics is at odds with the president-elect on a broad range of issues, from immigration and trade, to Russia and climate change."

    During the U.S. election campaign, Trump described Merkel's refugee policies as "insane". Like Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, who announced in early December that he would not seek a second term next year, will not be in Davos.

    Most other European political leaders are expected to be present, despite the furious changes in Europe's political landscape in the past year: the Forum had hoped to lure Matteo Renzi, but he resigned as Italian prime minister last month. European leaders that are expected include Mark Rutte of the Netherlands and Enda Kenny of Ireland. British Prime Minister Theresa May could also be there.

    German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who was elected to the WEF board of trustees last year, is expected to attend, as are senior ministers from a range of other European countries, as well as top figures from the European Commission.

    Members of Donald Trump's team, including Davos regulars like former Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn and fund manager Anthony Scaramucci, are also expected. Reuters reminds us that WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab was invited to Trump Tower last month, although the purpose of the visit was unclear.

    Although the WEF does not comment on which leaders it is expecting until roughly a week before the meeting, the star attraction is expected to be Xi Jinping, the first Chinese president to attend. Meanwhile, it is was highly unlikely that the one person everyone would like to seek answers from at Davos, Russian president Vladimir Putin, will be present.

    29.5 hours , Jan 2, 2017 12:42 PM

    This is an interesting development. Despite the use of epithets like "cunt" and "bitch" in the oh, so valuable discussion contributions above, the German head of state is quite astute and living in the real world. She has decided that association with the most elite of global meetings is a negative. Don't you consider that significant?
    Cognitive Dissonance 29.5 hours , Jan 2, 2017 12:44 PM
    Not significant, just politically expedient.
    Sandmann 29.5 hours , Jan 2, 2017 12:47 PM
    Hardly. There are "leaks" of German Govt cables to NDR revealing how far Juncker obstructed crackdown on corporate tax evasion when PM of Luxembourg. Clear indication Germany wants Juncker gone before BreXit negotiations start and Wilders gains votes in NL in March.

    1st Quarter in Europe is dynamite.

    Davos is fluff and irrelevant.

    Once UK SC delivers opinion in Jan 2017 there is a 1-line Bill to go through both Houses of Parliament. If the Lords blocks the Bill it will lead to a 1910 Constitutional Crisis and either Election, or abolition of House of Lords. UK is especially volatile in 2017 especially if Queen dies.

    Merkel sees nothing but danger ahead. Ukraine will probably implode and set of a refugee wave into Germany. Turkey could well crash and burn. UK is going to be a very difficult situation. 33% French farmers reportedly earning <350 Euros/month as exports to Russia collapsed. French election could be volatile. Italy is heading for meltdown.

    Merkel is going to burn - she has failed to head off any problem

    Soul Glow , Jan 2, 2017 12:47 PM
    Davos doesn't care about politicians. Politicians are merely banker's puppets. Look no further than Trump. He gets to be POTUS and what is his first act of business? To put Goldman Sachs in charge of his Treasury and put JP Morgan in charge of White House policy.

    If anyone thinks a politician will change anything, you are wrong. The banks make the orders and plans, everything else is theatre.

    Kagemusho , Jan 2, 2017 1:01 PM
    Recall the statements made by last year's participants at Davos? 36 WTF Quotes From The Davos Bubble Chamber

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-26/36-wtf-quotes-davos-bubble-chamber

    It's been said that the captain of the Titanic was drunk before the ship struck the iceberg. Given the above, maybe the Davosians are also equally intoxicated as they helm an economic ship that's about to go under. Whether it's by psychotropics or just plain hubris, they certainly don't seem to understand the depth of the danger they are in.

    MPJones , Jan 2, 2017 1:03 PM
    Spineless - no convictions whatsoever, just a pathetic powermad old woman. Her boat is sinking fast.

    [Jan 02, 2017] Neoliberals hate government policies, unless they increase thier ability to make profits

    Free market is a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberal secular region.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, duh. "Policy" and "Capitalism" don't go together and never have. When you enact policy, you destroy the ability to make profit and you get the 1970's. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Gibbon1 -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 10:21 PM
    Two of my criticisms about Krugman/Friedman, etc is that is 'free markets' are supposed to substitute for policy in the government sphere. Except very telling except when we're talking about funding the security state.

    The other is that the real power of markets is that in a real free market (not a Potemkin one) decisions are made often at the point where needs, information, incentives, and economic power come together. But the large scale decisions the governments have to make, markets fail. Policy though doesn't.

    But Neoliberals hate policy.

    AngloSaxon -> Gibbon1...
    Well, duh. "Policy" and "Capitalism" don't go together and never have. When you enact policy, you destroy the ability to make profit and you get the 1970's.
    likbez -> Gibbon1... January 01, 2017 at 10:15 PM
    Free market is a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberalism as a secular religion. Somewhat similar to "Immaculate Conception" in Catholicism.

    In reality market almost by definition is controlled by government, who enforces the rules and punish for the transgressions.

    Also note interesting Orwellian "corruption of the language" trick neoliberals use: neoliberals talk about "free market, not "fair market".

    After 2008 few are buying this fairy tale about how markets can operate and can solve society problems independently of political power, and state's instruments of violence (the police and the military). This myths is essentially dead.

    But like Adventists did not disappear when the second coming of Christ did not occurred in predicted timeframe, neoliberals did not did not disappeared after 2008 either. And neither did neoliberalism, it just entered into zombie, more bloodthirsty stage. the fact that even the term "neoliberalism" is prohibited in the US MSM also helped. It is kind of stealth ideology, unlike say, Marxists, neoliberals do not like to identify themselves as such. The behave more like members of some secret society, free market masons.

    Friedmanism is a flavor of economic Lysenkoism. Note that Lysenko like Friedman was not a complete charlatan. Some of his ideas were pretty sound and withstood the test of time. But that does not make his less evil.

    And for those who try to embellish this person, I would remind his role in 1973 Chilean coup d'état ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat ) and bringing Pinochet to power. His "Chicago boys" played a vital role in the events. This man did has blood on his hands.

    http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

    === quote ===
    Of course, bringing a reign of terror to Chile was not why the CIA had sponsored him. The reason he was there was to reverse the gains of the Allende social democracy and return control of the country's economic and political assets to the oligarchy. Pinochet was convinced, through supporters among the academics in the elite Chilean universities, to try a new series of economic policies, called "neoliberal" by their founders, the economists of the University of Chicago, led by an economist by the name of Milton Friedman, who three years later would go on to win a Nobel Prize in Economics for what he was about to unleash upon Chile.

    Friedman and his colleagues were referred to by the Chileans as "the Chicago Boys." The term originally meant the economists from the University of Chicago, but as time went on, as their policies began to disliquidate the middle class and poor, it took on a perjorative meaning. That was because as the reforms were implemented, and began to take hold, the results were not what Friedman and company had been predicting. But what were the reforms?

    The reforms were what has come to be called "neoliberalism." To understand what "neoliberal" economics is, one must first understand what "liberal" economics are, and so we'll digress briefly from our look at Chile for a quick...
    === end of quote ===

    [Jan 02, 2017] Angela Merkel, Russia's Next Target by Jochen Bittner

    Looks like panic among German neocons. Merkel might lose, being wounded by refugees fiasco.
    www.nytimes.com

    Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ms. Merkel has been the most consequential voice for punishing Russia. The next year, she welcomed a million refugees into Germany, and pushed the rest of Europe to do the same - thus, in the view of Russian ethno-nationalists, diluting European culture. And she still believes in a united, integrated European Union, a bastion of liberal values and, at least implicitly, a political and economic bulwark against Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Here, we can draw valuable lessons from the Cold War. What Russia does today is very much the digital version of what we Germans, before 1989, termed "Zersetzung." The term is hard to translate, but it's best described as the political equivalent of what happens when you pour acid on organic material: dissolution and disintegration.

    The methods of Zersetzung are to cast doubt on the basic norms of the Western liberal order and its institutions; to distort and thereby discredit the purposes of the European Union, NATO and the free-market economy; to erode the credibility of the free press and free elections. The means of Zersetzung include character assassination and, through the spreading of lies and fake news, the creation of a gray zone of doubt in which facts struggle to survive.

    ... ... ...

    Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43 v 0bama question.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
    "... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
    "... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
    "... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
    "... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
    "... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
    "... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
    "... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
    "... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
    "... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
    "... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43 v 0bama question.

    Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be "yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama still sucks".

    IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2 policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired Iran War.

    IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen & House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher & others.

    Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would have been worse.

    "What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz

    How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now Reganesque Presidents.

    It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century. #AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 9:14 am

    You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:

    1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared by Congress.

    2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.

    3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:18 am

    HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it the norm.
    Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
    Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated 100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
    Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
    Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
    Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens without trial.
    Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs, expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
    Libya.
    Expansion of our droning program.

    While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.

    Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.

    John Wright , December 31, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Bush's Iraq war will cost an estimated $3 trillion per Joseph Stiglitz.

    That does not count all the damage done to Iraq/Afghanistan people and property and American's reputation.

    Iraq's excess deaths due to the war were estimated at 500K to 655K.

    On a population adjusted basis, this would be equivalent to the USA losing 5 to 6.55 million people to a foreign, unprovoked, power.

    Bush scores quite high on being an effective evil, especially when viewed from outside the USA

    I score him the winner vs Obama on total damage done to the USA and the world

    j84ustin , December 31, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Absolutely.

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.

    http://time.com/4298318/iraq-us-troops-barack-obama-mosul-isis/

    And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?

    https://www.ft.com/content/c2b6329a-9287-11e4-b213-00144feabdc0

    I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.

    But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices – something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible to stop the wheel.

    TedWa , December 31, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Pat – don't forget about him putting banks above the law – unconstitutional and e v i l

    JCC , December 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , December 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
    Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents. Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House. History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.

    crittermom , December 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    "HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it the norm."
    Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    I like your epistemology! You don't know, but you do know others don't know either, even historians who clearly know a lot more on this than you.

    Ed , December 31, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Declining empires tend to get entire series of bad kings.

    Tom Bradford , December 31, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    Cause or effect?

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see Chain of Title by David Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase

    Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

    The World Justice Project has several pages on the topic and starts off with this:

    * The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
    * The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
    * The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
    * Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

    I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.

    The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism. Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.

    However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there, and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation. But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair. This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value = Trillions?

    Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of course also work their playbooks on other folks.

    To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    (3, 5, 7. 12 million) should be 3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance and mortgage industries.
    Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
    Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
    Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
    Office of Population Research, Princeton University

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
    Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance and mortgage industries.
    Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
    Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
    Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
    Office of Population Research, Princeton University

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    The book deserves to be plugged. I thought it was great. A fast and infuriating read. And very well written.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.

    Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough.

    Your position is obviously different.

    And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.

    Lost in OR , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.

    The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.

    In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed to be. Feint left, drive right.

    With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)

    Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.

    At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them.

    Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum; "Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.

    So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."

    craazyboy , December 31, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1 to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.

    It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players and too many styles. It's just not possible.

    Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of course.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    America will be lucky if it avoids something similar to the earlier Russian people's ranking of Tsar Nicholas versus Karensky and subsequent events.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    I like your response. Thanks.

    I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive. He's far from progressive.

    I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.

    My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.

    Vatch , December 31, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Sorry if I came across as harsh. I enjoy your arguments, so, I tried to encourage you to hang in there.
    Happy New Year

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    In other words, Obama's a Kissingerian realist, or a businessperson (but I repeat myself): only permanent interests.

    Happy New Year, and try to don't run off so easy. :)

    Yves Smith , December 31, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.

    Christopher Fay , December 31, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    This one's a keeper. I have to take notes including writer's name, post title, dates. Good summary.

    Ed , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities in both house of Congress.

    Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until decades have passed, if we make it that long.

    tongorad , December 31, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
    It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.

    Jess , December 31, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    "It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics."

    Bingo. Hit that one dead solid perfect, right in the ten-ring.

    Jess , December 31, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics."

    Bingo. You can say that again. Right in the ten-ring, dead solid perfect.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the "message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general. Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?

    The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.

    LT , December 31, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign, even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
    It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.

    alex morfesis , December 31, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..

    the grey lady

    5-11-2008

    In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.

    Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.

    But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.

    but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)

    A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.

    At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit.

    "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."

    also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the

    bud billiken parade

    peaceful, fun, successful

    heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence might confuse the closet racists

    RudyM , January 1, 2017 at 12:17 am

    There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.

    The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:

    The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed. Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around 12:30 pm.[39][40]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Billiken_Parade_and_Picnic#Violence

    dcrane , December 31, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    On balance this one should go on the "Good" list for Bush 43:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

    Yes, the abstinence-education dimension probably wasn't worth much, but that took up only a minority share of the funds.

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    Yes, they've been getting steadily worse (more right-wing) since Carter, without regard to party. That's at least 30 years now.,

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Jerri-Lynn, do all these last minute moves by Obama fit the pattern you observed Obie-the-wan perform at Harvard?

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:15 pm

    Clinton did it, too. I think it's a general pattern resulting from term limits – but in the case of sole executives, term limits do make sense.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Oct 26, 2016] There are some countervailing forces in action and the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon will be over

    Notable quotes:
    "... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
    "... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
    Oct 26, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    stevenjohnson

    @58

    This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.

    There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman.

    As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability in the USA is under real threat.

    But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS.

    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part of the problem

    Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.

    Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html )) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent a viable political force.

    Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime, mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)

    Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.

    In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution" measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization due to some bubble burst.

    That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines. Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic" balance in Europe.

    Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.

    So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine) and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.

    So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.

    My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted by Republican establishment.

    Val 10.26.16 at 3:54 am 72

    #70
    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.

    Howard Frant 10.26.16 at 6:19 am ( 73 )

    Stephen @58

    Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest. That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.

    phenomenal cat @64

    So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do.

    Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them. Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)

    Layman 10.26.16 at 11:33 am ( 79 )

    ' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '

    Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.

    Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some explanation called for.

    likbez 10.26.16 at 3:54 pm 80

    @72

    Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.

    I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:

    1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years",
    2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian Presidential elections"
    3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"

    1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:

    http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
    The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms) was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was 7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated) took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.

    These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms, or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.

    Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease are undisputable:

    2. Hillary and Obama attempt to stage the color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 are also undisputable, but not widely known:

    3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:

    If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with references and known facts.


    stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm

    likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.

    But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement of child protection laws that break up poor families. This cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a diversion from a useful understanding.

    There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement, supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.

    By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.

    Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.

    Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not "profoundly ignorant."

    Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling," that's an internet thing...

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
    "... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
    "... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
    "... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
    "... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
    "... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
    "... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
    "... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
    "... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | September 12, 2016 at 8:58 am
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.

    The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971, leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically, particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.

    Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.

    On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees. Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked the nation.

    And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.

    Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.

    And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you altogether.

    Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.

    Because, with friends like these ;

    When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript. "I am with you," Helms responded.

    9/11 means different things to different people.

    RabidGandhi , September 12, 2016 at 9:26 am

    The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.

    If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 11:50 am

    This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.

    For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled and idle.

    Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.

    Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.

    Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.

    Alejandro , September 12, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship, yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"

    Watt4Bob , September 12, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.

    The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.

    For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.

    It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.

    As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like.

    In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled and idle.

    The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly' to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their loyalty, until it becomes questionable

    Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.

    Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.

    Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.

    Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.

    It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations who made all the money didn't give a damn either.

    It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
    The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government in an effort to remedy the situation.

    For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.

    And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.

    See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.

    Katniss Everdeen , September 12, 2016 at 9:27 am

    " . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."

    "Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

    'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer essentials.'

    Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the way of my bullet."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example, any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.

    hunkerdown , September 12, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."

    Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?

    afisher , September 12, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.

    Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.

    pretzelattack , September 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies. the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.

    ProNewerDeal , September 12, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia.

    Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.

    Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".

    Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Neocons declare war on Trump

    Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them: "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
    "... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
    "... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
    "... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
    "... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
    "... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
    "... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
    "... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
    "... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
    POLITICO
    Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"

    Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.

    In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably."

    Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."

    In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump."

    Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders - many of whom are not considered neocons - that was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's "admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."

    The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official.

    Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values abroad.

    "1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams, a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."

    Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives, said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.

    "If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate, and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote in an email.

    Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy.

    Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.

    "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."

    In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."

    [Jul 24, 2016] Prominent neocons chickenhawks jump the ship and join Hillary camp

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? ..."
    "... But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat. ..."
    "... I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary: ..."
    "... The demonization of an entire foreign population. ..."
    "... The demonization of a particular foreign person. ..."
    "... The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway. ..."
    "... The pretense of upholding the rule of law. ..."
    "... The pretense of humanitarianism. ..."
    "... Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them. ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info

    RNC War Party, DNC War Makers by David Swanson

    ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? Are the most rabid war supporters on one side and the most dependable war makers getting nominated by the other? Well, maybe.

    But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat.

    Yes, Hillary Clinton is the most dependable war monger nominated by a major party in the United States in many years. She has the most consistent and lengthy record of doing what she's paid to do, of marketing U.S. weaponry abroad, of manufacturing justifications for wars, of lobbying branches of the U.S. government and foreign governments to support wars. And she'll do so while keeping up a pretense of abiding by some selection of laws.

    ... ... ...

    I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary:

    1. The pretense of a threat to anyone in the United States, most powerfully if it is a threat of torture or rape or death by hand or knife. It need not be the least bit realistic.
    2. The demonization of an entire foreign population.
    3. The demonization of a particular foreign person.
    4. Revenge.
    5. The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway.
    6. The pretense of upholding the rule of law.
    7. The pretense of humanitarianism.

    Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them.

    [Jun 08, 2016] Ukraine SBI is checking whether Poroshenko violated border crossing rules during trip to Maldives

    Jun 08, 2016 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    UkrinForm

    Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) has opened criminal proceedings regarding the possible organization by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of illegal crossing through the border with the use of fake documents, the SBI has reported on its Facebook page.

    "SBI investigators will check reports on former President Petro Poroshenko organizing illegal crossing through the state border of Ukraine with the use of deliberately forged documents," the report reads.

    In particular, the report specifies that it will be established during the investigation whether officials of the customs and border authorities included deliberately false information in official documents in order to ensure border crossing.

    Former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Andriy Portnov reported earlier that according to his statement, the SBI opened a criminal case to check possible violations of border crossing "by persons close to Poroshenko in 2018 under other people's passports to the Maldives archipelago."

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
    Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine) was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
    Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting it abroad)
    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
    Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals. ..."
    "... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
    "... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
    "... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
    "... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
    "... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 3:28:12 AM | 55

    I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.

    I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact, the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals.

    Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969.

    Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate "good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.

    A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).

    And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of the grandson of Arbez.

    Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.

    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 4:08:48 AM | 59

    https://blogs.princeton.edu/mudd/2008/01/allen-dulles-papers-released-by-cia-to-princeton-are-now-online/
    Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
    Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke

    The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W. Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497

    Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S. intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda, reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before their transfer to the University in 1974.

    [Nov 23, 2015] Christmas festivities a charade with world at war

    news.yahoo.com

    http://news.yahoo.com/christmas-festivities-charade-world-war-pope-183159295.html

    Vatican City (AFP) - Christmas festivities will seem empty in a world which has chosen "war and hate", Pope Francis said Thursday.

    "Christmas is approaching: there will be lights, parties, Christmas trees and nativity scenes ... it's all a charade. The world continues to go to war. The world has not chosen a peaceful path," he said in a sermon.

    "There are wars today everywhere, and hate," he said after the worst terror attack in French history, the bombing of a Russian airliner, a double suicide bombing in Lebanon, and a series of other deadly strikes.

    "We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for war and have the cynicism to deny it," the Argentine pontiff said, adding: "God weeps, Jesus weeps". ...

    [Oct 28, 2015] IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

    "Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth." Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.

    Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Dec 28, 2017] The CIA as Organized Crime How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World Published on Nov 27, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras Published on Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt Published on Dec 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver Published on Dec 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler Published on Dec 12, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no Published on Dec 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry Published on Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein Published on Dec 10, 2017 | www.facebook.com

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal Published on Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic Published on Feb 01, 2016 | chroniclesmagazine.org

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast Published on Apr 15, 2015 | antiwar.com

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura Published on Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter Published on Nov 28, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry Published on Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi Published on Oct 25, 2017 | dailycaller.com

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins Published on Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick Published on Oct 09, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter Published on Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich Published on Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign Published on Oct 03, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald Published on Sep 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood Published on Sep 26, 2017 | www.fff.org

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar Published on Sep 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed Published on Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames Published on Jun 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move Published on Sep 23, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency Published on Sep 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot Published on Apr 30, 2012 | www.monbiot.com

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot Published on Sep 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow Published on Sep 05, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

    [Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states> Published on Aug 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 26, 2017] The Pink Revolution and How to Beat It by Israel Shamir Published on Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined Published on Aug 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte Published on Nov 08, 2015 | zeroanthropology.net

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson Published on Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

    [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped Published on Apr 2, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused? Published on Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 28, 2017] Imperial Power Centers Divisions, Indecisions and Civil War by James Petras Published on Jul 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras Published on Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras Published on Apr 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras Published on May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras Published on Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills Published on Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman Published on Jun 22, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff Published on Apr 02, 2017 | thesaker.is

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue Published on May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared! Published on Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events Published on Sep 14, 2016 | September 12, 2016 at 8:58 am

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons Published on www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jan 19, 2019] Coincidence - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First Person To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene Published on Jan 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 28, 2017] The CIA as Organized Crime How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World

    [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

    [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

    [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

    [Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

    [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

    [Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states>

    [Aug 26, 2017] The Pink Revolution and How to Beat It by Israel Shamir

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

    [Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

    [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

    [Jul 28, 2017] Imperial Power Centers Divisions, Indecisions and Civil War by James Petras

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Jan 19, 2019] Coincidence - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First Person To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

    [Nov 14, 2018] Is Orwell overrated and Huxley undertated?

    [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

    [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

    [Oct 02, 2018] Recovered memory is a Freudian voodoo. Notice how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged

    [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

    [Sep 24, 2018] Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues.

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

    [Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus

    [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 07, 2018] Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a legitimate request to neoliberal MSM - Stop Bugging Me About The New York Times' Trump Op-Ed

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

    [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 18, 2018] MoA - John Brennan Is No Match For Trump

    [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

    [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

    [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

    [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

    [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide

    [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach

    [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

    [Jul 03, 2018] Corruption Allegations are one of the classic tools in the color revolution toolbox

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

    [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

    [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

    [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

    [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

    [Apr 10, 2018] The Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21, 2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad.

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

    [Dec 02, 2019] Ghouta is Arabic for Reichstag Fire by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie

    [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

    [Mar 10, 2018] They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

    [Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

    [Feb 18, 2018] Had Hillary Won What Now by Andrew Levine

    [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

    [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

    [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 27, 2018] In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap by Pat Buchanan

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    [Jan 24, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor

    [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou

    [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 28, 2017] The CIA as Organized Crime How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World

    [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [May 11, 2019] CIA Paid $100,000 To Shadowy Russian For Dirt on Trump, Including Sex Video by Chuck Ross

    [Dec 28, 2019] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") to counter the defection of trade union members from the party

    [Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson

    [Dec 19, 2019] A the core of color revolution against Trump is Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine

    [Dec 19, 2019] A joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton Foundation.

    [Dec 19, 2019] Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.

    [Dec 18, 2019] Rudy Giuliani Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted

    [Dec 17, 2019] Neocons like car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking credibility because ther profession is to lie in order to sell weapons to the publin, much like used car saleme lie to sell cars

    [Dec 17, 2019] Judge Denies Flynn's Requests For Exculpatory Information, Case Dismissal by Peter Svab

    [Dec 17, 2019] History Doesn t Repeat, But It Often Rhymes: Wilson in UK was subjected to the similar attack by rogue elements in MI5 as Trump in the USA

    [Dec 14, 2019] Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation

    [Dec 12, 2019] The FBI - Pushed By John Brennan - Lied To The Court Seven Times To Spy On The Trump Campaign

    [Dec 10, 2019] The level of Neo-McCarthyism and the number of lunitics this NYT forums is just astonishing: When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.

    [Dec 06, 2019] The USA is an occupied by neocon country

    [Dec 02, 2019] A Think Tank Dedicated to Peace and Restraint

    [Dec 02, 2019] Ghouta is Arabic for Reichstag Fire by Publius Tacitus

    [Nov 30, 2019] CrowdStrike: a Conspiracy Wrapped in a Conspiracy Inside a Conspiracy by Oleg Atbashian

    [Nov 28, 2019] WSJ story reopens the claim Comey had a report there was an email exchange between Loretta Lynch and Clinton claiming Lynch promised her the DOJ would go easy on Clinton.

    [Nov 01, 2019] Viable Opposition The Legal Connection Between Washington and Kiev

    [Nov 01, 2019] Color revolution is a method of using a minority to render the country ungovernble, waving a simplistic banner against corruption and for (undefined) democracy, which leaves the masses unorganized and eschews even a platform, in favor of a secret coterie run by intelligence againces

    [Oct 25, 2019] Trump-Haters, Not Trump, Are The Ones Wrecking America s Institutions, WSJ s Strassel Says

    [Oct 23, 2019] The treason of the intellectuals The Undoing of Thought by Roger Kimball

    [Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Oct 19, 2019] Kunstler One Big Reason Why America Is Driving Itself Bat$hit Crazy

    [Oct 10, 2019] There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect: he is a war criminal, who escaped justice

    [Sep 29, 2019] This Man Stopped a Runaway Impeachment by Barbara Boland

    [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin

    [Sep 15, 2019] How the UK Security Services neutralised the country s leading liberal newspaper by Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis

    [Sep 12, 2019] The Brain-Dead Maximalism of [neocon] Hard-liners by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 11, 2019] John Brennan's and Jim Clappers' Last Gasp by Larry C Johnson

    [Sep 10, 2019] Neoliberal Capitalism at a Dead End by Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik

    [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage

    [Aug 27, 2019] House Niggers Mutiny by Israel Shamir

    [Aug 26, 2019] US Backs Xenophobia Mob Violence in Hong Kong

    [Aug 25, 2019] What Is the US Role in the Hong Kong Protests> by Reese Erlich

    [Aug 21, 2019] Solomon If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed

    [Aug 17, 2019] The Unraveling of the Failed Trump Coup by Larry C Johnson

    [Aug 17, 2019] Debunking the Putin Panic by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)

    [Aug 13, 2019] "Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power."

    [Aug 12, 2019] Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized

    [Jul 29, 2019] Looks like Epstein turned informant for Mueller s FBI in 2008. Likely earlier

    [Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

    [Jul 29, 2019] The Real Reason The Propagandists Have Been Promoting Russia Hysteria by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America

    [Jul 23, 2019] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow

    [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 09, 2019] Ex-FBI, CIA Officials Draw Withering Fire on Russiagate by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then

    [Jun 28, 2019] The Donald's Latest Iranian Caper Sh*t-Faced Stupidity by David Stockman

    [Jun 27, 2019] The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East by C.J. Hopkins

    [Jun 25, 2019] Tucker US came within minutes of war with Iran

    [Jun 22, 2019] A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to New Departement of Defence rule: Internet Users Who Call For Attacking Other Countries Will Now Be Enlisted In The Military Automatically

    [Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression

    [Jun 22, 2019] Why a U.S.-Iran War Could End Up Being a Historic Disaster by Doug Bandow

    [Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow

    [Jun 21, 2019] America's Confrontation With Iran Goes Deeper Than Trump by Trita Parsi

    [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters

    [Jun 20, 2019] The Trump-Bolton Duo Is Just Like the Bush-Cheney Duo Warmongers Using Lies to Start Illegal Wars by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

    [Jun 19, 2019] Investigation Nation Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics by Jim Kavanagh

    [Jun 19, 2019] Bias bias the inclination to accuse people of bias by James Thompson

    [Jun 05, 2019] Do Spies Run the World by Israel Shamir

    [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.

    [May 22, 2019] On War With Iran, It's Trump Versus the Founding Fathers

    [May 19, 2019] How Russiagate replaced Analysis of the 2016 Election by Rick Sterling

    [May 16, 2019] The Disinformationists by C.J. Hopkins

    [May 14, 2019] iJews and the Left-i by Philip Mendes A Review, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review

    [May 14, 2019] Despite a $ 22 Trillion National Debt, America Is on a Military Spending Spree. 800 Overseas US Military Bases by Masud Wadan

    [May 13, 2019] Angry Bear Senate Democratic Jackasses and Elmer Fudd

    [May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi

    [May 11, 2019] Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources in Russia

    [May 11, 2019] Crowdstrike planted the malware on DNC systems, which they discovered later discovered and attributed to Russians later

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

    [May 11, 2019] Whitney Judgment Day Looms For John Brennan

    [May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

    [May 11, 2019] Intel and Law Enforcement Tried to Entrap Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [May 11, 2019] Nunes Memo Details Weaponization of FISA Court for Political Advantage by Elizabeth Lea Vos

    [May 11, 2019] CIA Paid $100,000 To Shadowy Russian For Dirt on Trump, Including Sex Video by Chuck Ross

    [May 10, 2019] Biden is up to neck in Spygate dirt by Jeff Carlson

    [May 10, 2019] Obama administration raced to obtain FICA warrant on Carter Page before Rogers investigation closes on them and that was definitely an obstruction of justice and interference with the ongoing investigation

    [May 10, 2019] What was the meaning of the term "insurance policy" in Stzok messages to Lisa Page

    [May 10, 2019] The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe

    [May 09, 2019] Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper

    [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson

    [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!

    [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors

    [May 03, 2019] The Wheels Of Real Justice Are In Motion Now Kunstler Fears The Desperate Resistance Next Move...

    [May 02, 2019] Russian and Eurasian Politics by Gordon M. Hahn

    [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed

    [Apr 28, 2019] Breath of fresh air--real journalism again! Have so much respect for Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate, great work!

    [Apr 28, 2019] On Contact Russiagate Mueller Report w- Aaron Mate

    [Apr 26, 2019] Mueller investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation

    [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 26, 2019] Intelligence agencies meddling in elections

    [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany

    [Apr 21, 2019] Psywar: Propaganda during Iraq war and beyond

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer

    [Apr 20, 2019] Sure, blame those guys over there for Hillary fiasco and hire Mueller to get the goods . That s the ultimate the dog ate my homework excuse.

    [Apr 17, 2019] The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional to the West's interest in toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely proportional to its enemy status

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 13, 2019] America as a Myth of good life is a powerful tool of color revolutions

    [Apr 09, 2019] NYT: It Is, in Fact, All About the Benjamins by Philip Weiss

    [Apr 08, 2019] Aaron Maté Was Also Right About Russiagate

    [Apr 07, 2019] Nunes The Russian Collusion Hoax Meets An Unbelievbable End

    [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 03, 2019] Jewish Power Rolls Over Washington by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 02, 2019] Requiem to Russiagate by CJ Hopkins

    [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 31, 2019] A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco by James W Carden

    [Mar 31, 2019] Guaido Set To Enact Uprising Rooted In US Regime-Change Operations Manual

    [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil

    [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate

    [Mar 25, 2019] Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged, self-harming neoliberal capitalism by Jonathan Cook

    [Mar 25, 2019] Meet The Kushners First Couple In-Waiting by Ilana Mercer

    [Mar 25, 2019] Spygate The True Story of Collusion (plus Infographic) by Jeff Carlson

    [Mar 25, 2019] Nuland role in Russiagate

    [Mar 25, 2019] Another SIGINT compromise ...

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.

    [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary

    [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.

    [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed

    [Mar 22, 2019] Glenn Greenwald on Twitter The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away

    [Mar 11, 2019] Bruce Ohr, Liar or Moron by Larry C Johnson

    [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

    [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

    [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry

    [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

    [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Feb 16, 2019] Death Of Russiagate: Mueller Team Tied To Mifsud s Network

    [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

    [Feb 09, 2019] Did The Department Of Justice Protect Brenda Snipes From Prosecution For Ballot Destruction by Elizabeth Lea Vos

    [Jan 30, 2019] The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes its financial and geopolitical dominance

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

    [Jan 19, 2019] Coincidence - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First Person To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene

    [Jan 13, 2019] As FBI Ramped Up Witch Hunt When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

    [Jan 11, 2019] How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism by Ilana Mercer

    [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

    [Feb 23, 2020] Previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism

    [Feb 23, 2020] Where Have You Gone, Smedley Butler The Last General To Criticize US Imperialism by Danny Sjursen

    [Feb 08, 2020] Is Iraq About To Switch From US to Russia

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Feb 03, 2020] Amazon.com Customer reviews White House Warriors How the National Security Council Transformed the American Way of War

    [Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story

    [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan

    [Jan 17, 2020] Ukraine is a deeply sick patient. The destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic. Diaspora is greedy and want a piece of cake immediately

    [Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country

    [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    Sites

    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes :  Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce :  Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS :  Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development :  Scripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month :  How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    		 You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: July, 01, 2020